BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Stephen Lawrence Independent Review

Resolved,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report, dated 6 March 2014, of the Stephen Lawrence Independent Review: Possible corruption and the role of undercover policing in the Stephen Lawrence case.—(Mr Gyimah.)
	Resolved,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report, dated 6 March 2014, of the Stephen Lawrence Independent Review: Possible corruption and the role of undercover policing in the Stephen Lawrence case, Summary of Findings.—(Mr Gyimah.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Export Support Services (SMEs)

Karen Lumley: What steps he is taking to raise awareness of export support services among small and medium-sized businesses.

Michael Fallon: UK Trade & Investment has an extensive programme of awareness-raising activity that is directed at small and medium-sized businesses. That includes a national marketing campaign, “Exporting is GREAT”. More than 10 million people are expected to see the campaign and it should lead to about 3,000 additional businesses working with UKTI.

Karen Lumley: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Clifford Springs in Redditch, which has a great record in exporting springs, for which Redditch is renowned? Will he tell Clifford Springs and other companies what more they can expect from UKTI?

Michael Fallon: I, too, congratulate Clifford Springs on its export success, particularly to the United States. UKTI has a team of 39 international trade advisers based in the west midlands. They have supported more than 1,400 companies across the region, including many companies in my hon. Friend’s constituency. They also
	support more experienced companies and companies of all sizes with advice, information and practical support to build their exports.

Richard Burden: The Minister will know that one sector in which exports are great for Britain is the motorsport sector. That is to be applauded. However, does he share my concern that some of the exporting that appears to be going on is the exporting of jobs? That is what is happening at Dunlop Motorsport in Birmingham. It seems to be exporting some jobs abroad, when it has been offered alternative sites in Birmingham and when his Department has been pressing it to stay in Birmingham. Will he redouble his efforts to persuade Dunlop Motorsport to stay in Birmingham, where it should be?

Michael Fallon: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met the company and it was the subject of a debate in the House recently. We will continue to do what we can. However, motorsport is an important and large business sector. I attended the Autosport exhibition in Birmingham recently, as the hon. Gentleman probably did. More than 45,000 people work in the industry across the country and it has a total value of more than £8 billion. We must do everything that we can to ensure that the sector continues to grow.

Mark Prisk: Exporting in the modern economy requires sustained financial support, yet the law in this country restricts to individual transactions the financial support for exports. I urge the Government to change the law so that we can have the support that is needed for exporters, small, medium and large.

Michael Fallon: I will certainly look at the point that my hon. Friend raises. I pay tribute to his efforts at the Department over two and a half years to back companies of all sizes in their export drive.

Bank Lending

Robert Flello: What recent assessment he has made of the availability of finance and the level of lending by banks to small businesses.

Vincent Cable: Gross lending to small businesses for the 12 months to January was 14% higher than in the same period a year ago, although net lending continues to contract. The Bank of England’s credit conditions survey reported, however, that:
	“The overall availability of credit to the corporate sector increased significantly”
	in the final quarter of 2013.

Robert Flello: I am really surprised by the answer that the Secretary of State has given, because small businesses in my constituency tell me that they are finding it almost impossible and often totally impossible to access the finance that they need. Lending to business is down after the failure of the Government’s Project Merlin, credit easing and funding for lending schemes. It now emerges that the business bank is just a rebadging of existing schemes. Why has the Secretary of State failed to learn from the Department’s mistakes and failures?

Vincent Cable: Of course, there is a continuing credit problem for many small companies. That is very clear. There is a very different pattern among the significant banks. Lloyds is greatly expanding its lending, as is Santander. Some of the new banks, such as Shawbrook and Aldermore, are beginning to make an impression. That has been cancelled out by RBS, although its new management have indicated that they wish to expand its net lending considerably. The business bank is beginning to make a significant impact. It is not a rebadging. It is already out in the market, supporting new forms of non-conventional business finance.

Andrew Bridgen: Business intentions rely on confidence, and with business confidence at a 22-year high, figures from the Office for National Statistics show that business investment is up 8.5% on the previous year. Does that not show that business is not only confident about the economy, but about the policies of this Government?

Vincent Cable: Yes, there is a high level of confidence, and it is reinforced by fact. Indeed, the output and spending figures are reinforcing the trend that the hon. Gentleman describes. There is, however, a continuing problem regarding credit to the small and medium-sized business sector. We are not complacent about that, and the interventions we are making will help.

Meg Hillier: Many businesses in my constituency tell me that their biggest problem is the withdrawal of overdrafts, and they are sometimes offered big and unwanted loans instead. Is the Secretary of State monitoring that trend, to ensure that banks are not fiddling the system to benefit themselves, and to attack small businesses that have cash-flow issues but do not need big loans?

Vincent Cable: One positive thing is that we are now getting a growth of specialist institutions that provide small businesses with a type of finance—Aldermore provides asset-based financing or new kinds of invoice financing to deal with cash flow or investment as required. However, the hon. Lady is right to say that there is a particular problem in that area of the market.

Lorely Burt: I recently had the privilege of opening the first bank in my constituency to be approved under the new Government fast-track system—Paragon bank—and it was full of praise for the help it received from my right hon. Friend’s Department. Does he share my aspiration that that will herald the beginning of much greater diversity and choice in the banking sector, and particularly help for small businesses?

Vincent Cable: My hon. Friend is right and I thank her for her kind words. Ultimately, what will change the problem is breaking the traditional monopoly of the big four banks. Many new banks are now coming into existence, and the more flexible licensing regime operated by the regulators is playing a significant part. I believe that 20 new banks have recently been licensed and, within a few years, I think we will see real competition and diversity.

Toby Perkins: The Secretary of State says that he is not complacent, and he has good cause not to be. Net business lending was down in eight of the past 12 months, and businesses will hear that in the past year, lending is down by £11.6 billion on the
	year before. How does he think those businesses will respond to the news that in the past year, Barclays and Lloyds made 508 people millionaires due to the bonuses they paid, at the same time as many small businesses are struggling to get access to finance? Is there a discrepancy between the Government’s performance on small business lending and the bonuses that continue to be paid by those banks?

Vincent Cable: There are often bonus levels that are extreme, but it is important to recall that at the peak of the financial crisis when the Labour party was in charge, there was a bonus pool of well over £12 billion. That has now shrunk to a tiny fraction of that, and at least one bank to which the hon. Gentleman referred—Lloyds—is making a significant improvement in the supply of small business lending.

EU Regulation

Bob Blackman: What steps he is taking to reduce the amount of EU regulation which affects businesses.

Michael Fallon: The Government continue to press the European Union to reduce burdens on business. We are focused on delivering the business taskforce’s report, their 30 specific recommendations for reforming EU law, and the “compete” principles that should apply to all new EU legislation. We have already achieved good progress on seven of the 30 recommendations, and we are seeing growing recognition of the “compete” principles among major European business organisations and in the European Parliament.

Bob Blackman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Businesses in my constituency complain not only about EU regulations, but about the fact that other countries do not play by the same regulations, and that when our civil servants implement regulations, they gold-plate them. What action is my right hon. Friend taking to remove that gold-plating and ensure that we do the minimum possible to abide by the rules?

Michael Fallon: I think there was too much gold-plating in the past, and we have reviewed all 132 directives implemented in the past two and a half years since we tightened the rules on transposition. Of those 132, there is only one example of a directive being gold-plated. That is the consumer rights directive where we took the decision to better protect consumer interests in the use of premium lines.

Barry Sheerman: Do we have to use this language from The Sun about gold-plating? There is good regulation and bad regulation, and we should be in favour of the good and oppose the bad. As the Minister’s Department will know, this morning there is a Financial Conduct Authority report on crowdfunding. Crowdfunding is one way that small businesses can get finance, and they have been let down by the big banks in this country. This regulation comes from this Government. Is EU regulation able to help us where the Government cannot?

Michael Fallon: The business bank is working precisely on supporting crowdfunding with schemes of that kind. I agree that there is good regulation to protect consumers and health and safety, but there is also far too much unnecessary legislation that has been imposed on us by the European Union. The previous Government did absolutely nothing about it, but we are doing something.

Minimum Wage (Prosecutions for Non-payment)

Karl Turner: How many firms have been prosecuted for non-payment of the national minimum wage since May 2010.

Vincent Cable: Since 2010-11, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has identified £11.3 million in arrears of wages for 66,000 workers through civil powers, which are sufficient in the majority of cases. However, for the minority that are persistently non-compliant, criminal investigation is appropriate. Two employers have been prosecuted since 2010, with nine prosecutions in total since 2007.

Karl Turner: Does the Secretary of State agree that paying Portuguese seafarers working on P&O Ferries in and out of Hull £3.96 an hour risks the employment of British seafarers? Will he make sure that the national minimum wage enforcement team investigates the maritime sector?

Vincent Cable: The maritime sector is subject to the national minimum wage if it is operating within the UK jurisdiction. I will happily take up the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions and, indeed, I was aware of accusations of abuse in this sector.

Ian Murray: We know that the Government do not want to admit that the country is engulfed by a cost of living crisis, but that denial is made worse when the Chancellor is exposed as giving a hollow and empty promise to raise the national minimum wage to £7 an hour. Indeed, only a few days after he made that promise, the Conservative party issued a memo, under the heading “Common Sense Guide”, advising on how to avoid paying the national minimum wage. Rather than false promises for the lowest paid in our country, would it not be helpful to utilise the Secretary of State’s naming and shaming policy to expose the national minimum wage deniers in his Government and back Labour’s plans for a living wage?

Vincent Cable: I thought that the Labour party was still committed to supporting the national minimum wage. This is an interesting new evolution of policy, which seems to have been made on the stump. The naming and shaming policy has now come into effect and the first five companies were named at the end of last week.

Consumer Rights of Small Businesses

Alex Cunningham: What recent representations he has received from small businesses on their consumer rights.

Jennifer Willott: The Government have previously considered the case for small businesses to have rights when buying goods and services that are more aligned with consumers, and consulted on this question in 2008 and 2012. We have continued to engage with representatives of small business on this matter. The Federation of Small Businesses will shortly present a report in this area and I have committed to respond and will read it with interest.

Alex Cunningham: I had a visit from the North East Federation of Small Businesses on Friday and was told that it has seen longer and longer delays in getting larger organisations to pay for goods and services, with one—Procter & Gamble—now having payment terms of 180 days. It says the prompt payment code has no teeth and companies just extend their terms to comply. Is it not time for the Government to intervene to put an end to these disgraceful delays and give small organisations a better chance of survival?

Jennifer Willott: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and the Government take concerns from business about unfair payment terms very seriously. For example, as he says, receiving payments promptly can be critical to the survival of a small business. That is why the Department launched a discussion paper called “Building a responsible payment culture” at the beginning of December. It sought views on what unfair payment terms look like and whether legislative or non-legislative measures should be used to tackle them. The consultation closed at the end of January and we are currently analysing the responses. We will announce shortly what we want to do to tackle the issue.

Bank Lending

Jim Cunningham: In how many of the last 24 months net lending to business by banks has risen.

Matthew Hancock: The most recent data from the Bank of England show that net lending to small and medium-sized businesses was positive in March, June and November, and the bank’s most recent trends in lending and credit conditions reports show that confidence is beginning to return, helped by interventions such as the business bank. Gross lending continues to be higher year on year, but there is still much more to do.

Jim Cunningham: When will the Government stop blaming the previous Government and everybody else and get the major banks such as Lloyds and HSBC actually lending to small businesses? Small businesses in my constituency and up and down the country are suffering very badly.

Matthew Hancock: In order to understand the problem that we are having to address, it is important to analyse why it came about. We all know why it came about—because of the under-regulation by the Labour party. It is absolutely true that gross lending increased by £4 billion in October 2013—the highest amount since 2009—so we are moving in the right direction. But there is much more to do to clear up the mess left by the Labour party.

Philip Hollobone: May I report from Northamptonshire that businesses are not having to go to lending to invest, but generating their own cash? The latest survey from the Northamptonshire chamber of commerce shows that
	“44% of manufacturers and 21% of service sector respondents reporting an improvement”
	in their cash flow
	“with 24% proposing to invest in plant and machinery and 44% in training.”
	Businesses are not necessarily dependent on lending from banks.

Matthew Hancock: Of course some businesses are dependent on lending and it is very important to ensure that that problem is sorted out, but my hon. Friend rightly raises the fact that many businesses have an increasing amount of cash on their balance sheets. Encouraging them to get out and spend that cash and invest is an absolutely critical reason for increasing business confidence. I am delighted that business confidence is at record levels. Northamptonshire is one of the most supportive places for business and has recently won an award for exactly that.

Estate Agents

David Hanson: What recent assessment he has made of the number of complaints and the level of consumer detriment relating to estate agents’ practices in England and Wales.

Susan Elan Jones: What recent assessment he has made of the number of complaints and the level of consumer detriment relating to estate agents’ practices in England and Wales.

Jennifer Willott: Citizens Advice received 2,831 calls on issues concerning estate agents from February 2013 to January 2014. The Office of Fair Trading investigated 114 complaints against estate agents from April 2013 to October 2013. Trading Standards continues to carry out enforcement activity against rogue estate agents. From 1 April, the Competition and Markets Authority will work with other consumer bodies to monitor the level of detriment relating to estate agents’ practices.

David Hanson: There is growing concern about the process of sale by tender, which has the potential to push up costs for both vendor and purchaser. Does the Minister share that concern?

Jennifer Willott: This particular issue has not been raised with me, but I am happy to take it up with the enforcement authorities and the two redress schemes. I will ask the Office of Fair Trading and the CMA to consider the matter on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman.

Susan Elan Jones: There is no doubt that there are good estate agents out there as well as bad estate agents, but it is surely a very bad practice when both buyers and sellers are charged a fee for the same property. Will the Minister condemn the practice?

Jennifer Willott: As the hon. Lady says, this is a potentially worrying and emerging trend that seems to be on the increase. I have already written to the redress schemes to ask them to examine the matter. From 1 April, Powys county council takes over responsibility for the overall enforcement of licensing of estate agents, and I will be writing to it to ask it to examine the practice.

Stella Creasy: The Minister mentions the Government’s intention for Powys county council, which serves a predominantly rural area, to take over the regulation of estate agents from April. Powys has had three different cabinets in as many months, and had to be threatened with intervention by the Welsh Government before it could agree a budget yesterday. Given that it cannot seem to get its own house in order, with practices such as double charging and mortgages by tender being put forward by estate agents, why does the Minister think the council is the right body to get house sales in order?

Jennifer Willott: At the moment, both trading standards and the OFT possess enforcement powers relating to estate agents. From 1 April, we are simplifying the landscape by transferring the OFT’s powers to the lead authority, Powys county council. There is a precedent for having a lead local authority effectively to address functions across the nation—for example, illegal money lending teams for England and Wales do this. I have faith in the ability of our trading standards officers who are extremely effective, well trained and very responsive to the needs of members of the public, and I have every faith that Powys county council trading standards department will be able to exercise these functions perfectly adequately.

Apprenticeships (Role of Procurement)

Catherine McKinnell: If he will make it his policy to better use procurement by his Department to increase apprenticeship opportunities.

Michael McCann: If he will make it his policy to better use procurement by his Department to increase apprenticeship opportunities.

Matthew Hancock: We consider opportunities for the provision of apprenticeships on an individual basis. Last month, however, we announced a new college to train the next generation of world-class engineers working on the construction of High Speed 2. We hope that that will create up to 2,000 apprentices. Crossrail is the largest procurement project across government—indeed, it is the largest construction project in Europe—and has a target of 400 apprentices over the life cycle of the project as part of its procurement.

Catherine McKinnell: I thank the Minister for his answer, and note his mention of procurement. In 2010, I introduced a Bill to increase the number of apprenticeships by means of public contract procurement. The proposal was adopted by the official Opposition, and was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) in his Apprenticeships and
	Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill. Does the Minister agree that it would be an excellent way in which to mark national apprenticeship week for the Government to adopt the policy officially, and to ensure that it is rolled out across the board?

Matthew Hancock: As I have said, we include apprentices in procurement contracts. Of course procurement must put value for money at the top of the list to ensure that we spend taxpayers’ money wisely—which, these days, we do—but we must also ensure that, in national apprenticeship week, we celebrate the value that apprentices can bring, and the value that they can often add to projects.

Michael McCann: I do not thank the Minister for his answer, because he did not answer the question. When he is considering whether to boost apprenticeships through the use of procurement, what is a higher priority for him: cheaper contracts, or the supply of apprenticeship opportunities to our people?

Matthew Hancock: As I have said, we are including apprentices in procurement contracts through Crossrail and High Speed 2. We will also be establishing a nuclear college, so that it will be local people who, through apprenticeships, ensure that Britain maintains the skills that will enable us to build infrastructure such as the new civil nuclear power stations.

Greg Mulholland: For every pound spent on an apprentice, £18 is invested in the economy. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the £16 million new facility at Leeds College of Building, which will deliver apprenticeships for 7,500 students and will make a huge difference to apprenticeships in the city?

Matthew Hancock: I have been to Leeds to see what is being done with apprenticeships. Building colleges for building is an important part of ensuring that we can build our buildings in the future, and using apprenticeships to do that is an important way of improving and retaining skills, but, crucially, it also gives thousands of young people a chance to obtain the skills that they need in order to hold a sustainable job and have a secure future.

Neil Parish: The building of Hinkley C will create a huge amount of employment in and around not only Somerset but Devon. Apprenticeship schemes will certainly work very well when it comes to building a power station.

Matthew Hancock: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to Bridgwater college, which has put an awful lot of effort into ensuring that we build up the courses that will provide us with new nuclear skills.

Liam Byrne: National apprenticeship week provides an extraordinary opportunity to celebrate the amazing work of our apprentices, but it is a matter of concern to all Members that there are now 5,000 fewer young people studying in apprenticeships than there were at the time of the last election. That is why news of huge staff cuts at the National Apprenticeship Service is so worrying. The
	excellent Nick Linford of
	FE Week
	says that they may amount to 20%, and I hear from front-line staff in Birmingham that the figure may be 50%. The Minister refused to answer a written question on the subject, and he dodged a question about it in the House yesterday. Will he now tell us how many staff at the National Apprenticeship Service—which is part of the Skills Funding Agency—will lose their jobs in the next year?

Matthew Hancock: The National Apprenticeship Service does a magnificent job in putting together events such as national apprenticeship week, and it is important to ensure that we run it as effectively as possible. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a record number of people have participated in apprenticeships in the last year, and that they are doing a fantastic job. It is true that we had to remove some low-quality apprenticeships that were only six months long. The Opposition claim that they want high-quality apprenticeships, but then complain when we remove low quality. I will not take any lessons from them.

Businesses in Bassetlaw

John Mann: On what date he plans to visit Bassetlaw to inspect and meet local businesses.

Vincent Cable: I have provisionally booked a ministerial visit to Bassetlaw and to neighbouring areas in Nottinghamshire for early June.

John Mann: I will parlay with the devil to get jobs and investment into my constituency, and I can guarantee the Secretary of State my personal protection from my constituents and their anger with the coalition. Perhaps we shall be able to have, for the day, a healthier coalition promoting jobs and investment in Bassetlaw.

Vincent Cable: I am not sure I shall need much protection because the firms in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency are already beating their way to my door. I believe 14 companies have availed themselves of the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, there have been five start-up loans and 17 other companies are using the growth accelerator, all in his patch.

National Minimum Wage

Andrew Selous: What his policy is on the future level of the national minimum wage.

Vincent Cable: Our aim is to maximise the wages of the low-paid without it costing jobs and ensure the benefits of the recovery are shared by everyone. We fully support an independent Low Pay Commission and are currently considering this year’s recommendation to increase the national minimum wage by 3% to £6.50. This would represent the first real increase since the financial crisis. In addition, we are considering the Low Pay Commission’s response to how we can restore the real value of the national minimum wage, which has not kept pace with inflation since 2008.

Andrew Selous: I am looking forward to many of my constituents seeing a pay rise shortly as the minimum wage rises, but what is the Secretary of State doing to address the worrying productivity gap so that future wage rises are based on increases in productivity and earned output?

Vincent Cable: My hon. Friend is right that if we are to sustain real increases in wages whether at the minimum level or above, there have to be productivity increases and many of the problems in the low-paid sectors like catering and care are to do with the fact that productivity levels are very low. I gather, for example, that in some of the lowest paid sectors the minimum wage is already 90% of the median. That reflects the low productivity in those industries.

Nicholas Dakin: With families £1,600 a year worse off, has the Secretary of State got any plans to follow Labour’s lead and incentivise employers to pay the living wage?

Vincent Cable: We have already made it clear that we would encourage companies to pay the living wage if they could afford it, but we need to be very clear that this is not a mandated system. Indeed, the Low Pay Commission has expressed considerable care in its recommendations to be sure that in promoting a higher level of wages at the bottom, which we want to see, we do not force large numbers of workers out of work.

Flooding (Support for Businesses)

Mark Garnier: What steps he is taking to support businesses affected by recent floods.

Michael Fallon: We have funded a £10 million business support scheme which is available to businesses that have been flooded or significantly impacted by the floods. The grant can help businesses with clean-up costs, drying equipment, temporary accommodation and marketing. This is part of a wider package that includes 100% business rate relief for three months and new repair and renewal grants.

Mark Garnier: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer and for all the Government are doing to help businesses affected by the floods. In my constituency, 29 businesses, mainly in the town of Stourport-on-Severn, have been directly flooded and a number of others have been indirectly affected. So far, Wyre Forest has not been included in the first tranche of the direct support grant. Can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that those businesses that have been affected will be supported when the second tranche is announced next week?

Michael Fallon: Yes. With the first round of funding—some £5 million—the aim was to get the money out and allocated to local authorities as quickly as possible. We are in touch with other local authorities, including Wyre Forest district council, and I hope the second round of funding will be allocated very shortly.

Diana Johnson: Can the Minister confirm that the business support money that is available is capped at £5,000? That might meet the needs of smaller businesses, but for medium-sized or larger businesses that is quite a small amount considering many of them lost very expensive equipment.

Michael Fallon: The cap is £2,500 for the business support scheme, although there are other schemes available and the hon. Lady will be aware that I wrote to her on 25 February pointing out that Hull has been allocated some £230,000, the fifth largest allocation anywhere in the country.

Oliver Colvile: Following the floods that took out Dawlish railway line, last week I visited a number of my businesses at my Plymouth railway station, including taxi drivers, Spar and some newsagents, who have noticed a 40% drop in their footfall. What might the Government be able to do to help those people?

Michael Fallon: We have announced a £2 million tourism support package, from which Plymouth will benefit. Local workshops and drop-in clinics will deliver practical help on the ground for tourism businesses, alongside a focused marketing campaign to boost trade for Easter and the early summer. VisitBritain is providing a promotional push abroad to encourage visitors from overseas, and I can tell my hon. Friend that it is working in partnership with Brittany Ferries on a £10 million campaign to promote the south-west more generally.

Anne McIntosh: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that small businesses will be excluded from the Flood Re insurance scheme, and that that will have an impact on their future reinsurance and excess premiums?

Michael Fallon: The Flood Re scheme is there to help some of the hardest-to-insure areas, but most business insurance is already priced to risk, unlike household insurance, in which cross-subsidies apply. However, I will certainly look again at the point my hon. Friend has raised.

Retail Grocery Market

Mark Harper: What recent assessment he has made of the competitiveness of the retail grocery market.

Jennifer Willott: Retail is a highly competitive sector, particularly in the grocery market, with multiple companies competing for market share on price, brand and quality. Retailers are quick to respond to changing consumer preferences. The Competition Commission’s 2008 assessment of the groceries sector found that it was generally working well and that consumers were receiving the benefits of competition, such as value, choice, innovation and convenience.

Mark Harper: I am happy to agree with the Minister on that, and I would like to draw to her attention the behaviour of the Co-operative supermarket in Cinderford in my constituency. It is using every trick in the book to
	behave in an anti-competitive manner to block a planning application that has been approved by my local council and that is popular with local people. Should not it just get on with competing on the basis of price and choice, rather than on the basis of the quality of its legal team?

Jennifer Willott: I fully support competition in the retail sector, with its benefits for consumers. The competition regime in the UK is designed to ensure that competition works in the best interests of consumers; it is not intended to protect incumbent businesses from competition. The Government remain committed to a town centre first policy, but that does not mean that shops cannot be built outside town centres where appropriate. It is up to local authorities to ensure that their local plans identify the retail needs of their local communities, and that they provide a firm basis for any planning decisions.

Postgraduate Qualifications

Hugh Bayley: What steps his Department is taking to encourage UK students to study for postgraduate qualifications at UK universities.

David Willetts: The Government understand the importance of postgraduate study, which is why we are creating a new postgraduate support fund, worth £75 million over the next two years. This investment will allow universities to pilot innovative programmes to support access and participation.

Hugh Bayley: As the Minister knows, the UK will not remain competitive if we do not reverse the frightening trend of falling numbers of British students starting postgraduate qualifications, and I fear that the situation could get worse as the first cohort of students to have paid much higher undergraduate fees starts to feed through the system. How many additional postgraduate students will £75 million pay for? What will the Government do further to boost the number of British students doing postgraduate courses?

David Willetts: After 2016, graduates will be paying back less per month than under the current arrangements, so that factor should not deter postgraduate study. Our extra funding is paying for 20 programmes, in 20 universities, to explore different ways of encouraging more postgraduate study.

Part-time and Mature Students

Tom Blenkinsop: What recent estimate he has made of changes in the number of applications by (a) part-time and (b) mature students since changes in the level of student fees.

David Willetts: Data are not collected on applications for part-time study in higher education. However, the number of part-time students enrolling in higher education has fallen by 42% since its peak in 2008-09. The latest figures from UCAS show that the number of mature applicants to full-time undergraduate courses has risen over the last two application cycles by 5%.

Tom Blenkinsop: I thank the Minister for that answer, and for that rather startling statistic. Another startling statistic is that the number of part-time undergraduates fell by 19% in 2012-13. Does he now regret the trebling of tuition fees? Does he understand that it has undermined the number of part-time students and that it is leading to declining social mobility?

David Willetts: This is not to do with the introduction of the fees and loans. As I said in answer to the previous question, the burden of repayment on graduates has fallen. The hon. Gentleman describes a trend that began under the previous Government. We believe it is attributable significantly to their policy of not funding students who already have an equivalent-level qualification. That is why I have started the process of reversing that by extending entitlements to loans to more part-time students, and we aim to continue to reverse the damage done by Labour’s policy.

Bank Lending

Andrew George: What assessment he has made of the effects on businesses of banks’ lending practices.

Matthew Hancock: Banks’ lending practices—good or bad—can have an impact on the willingness of small businesses to approach their bank. We are alert to any evidence of poor practice, and we take up concerns both with the banks and, where necessary, with the financial services regulators.

Andrew George: While bankers are still happily filling their boots with multi-million pound bungs, thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises across this land are being sucked dry by those same banks. Regulators are offering only woefully limp regulation at the moment, so is it not now time for Ministers to step in to protect SMEs from these mis-sold interest rate hedging products?

Matthew Hancock: Of course, we have strengthened the regulation of the banking system enormously in the past three years. As yesterday’s figures from the Financial Conduct Authority show, 62% of businesses that might have been mis-sold interest rate swaps have now been told by the banks whether they are owed compensation under the scheme regulated by the FCA, and all businesses owed redress will have been made offers by the end of June.

Apprenticeships

Stephen McPartland: What support his Department is providing to apprenticeships.

Matthew Hancock: We are well on our way to delivering the agenda of apprenticeship reform. This is national apprenticeship week and, as we know, across the country participation has increased by about 80% since the election. In Stevenage, participation in apprenticeships since the election has more than doubled.

Stephen McPartland: Apprenticeships are a great opportunity to reduce the gap between education and employment, and in Stevenage last year more than 800 young people took up the opportunity of an apprenticeship. Yesterday, I launched a jobs fair so that we can push towards 1,000 young people taking up the apprenticeship opportunity this year. Will the Minister join me in congratulating all the local partners—the jobcentres, employers, schools and colleges—on the work they are doing?

Matthew Hancock: I add to those in that list, all of which I congratulate, my hon. Friend, who has obviously played an important role in bringing people together. Apprenticeships, especially high-quality ones, can happen only as a partnership between training providers and employers, and of course the Government, with some of their funding, to give young people the opportunities they need.

Julie Hilling: On Monday, I had the pleasure of hosting a group of apprentices from MBDA here in Parliament. The group included Anna Schlautmann, the manufacturer apprentice of the year, and Jade Aspinall, Semta’s apprentice of the year. MBDA has a fantastic apprenticeship programme, so what is the Department doing to promote best practice in apprenticeships?

Matthew Hancock: These apprentices clearly had an interesting time, because they met not only the hon. Lady, but the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon)—and indeed, I also met them. They were extremely impressive, and showing the highlights of the best apprentices is something we should all celebrate across this House.

Mike Thornton: Figures released this week show that every time a local company hires an apprentice their bottom line gets an average boost of £2,100. In Eastleigh, that means that new apprenticeships alone provided a local boost of more than £2 million in 2012-13. Will the Minister join me in praising local businesses in Eastleigh, such as GE Aviation and Arlington Rail, which have a great track record in delivering high-quality apprenticeships? Will he also join me in praising the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), who is leading the charge on this?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, of course I will join my hon. Friend. I also join him in paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Member for Burnley and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), who are apprenticeship ambassadors and do enormous work, in this House and beyond, to promote apprenticeships.

Insecurity in the Workplace

Ann McKechin: If his Department will make an assessment of the main causes of insecurity in the workplace.

Jennifer Willott: The 2011 workplace employment relations study measured insecurity. It showed
	that job insecurity is related to three factors: whether a workplace had been subject to recent redundancies; if managers felt that the recent recession affected the business; and the number of changes to working terms and conditions experienced by employees.

Ann McKechin: The Minister will be aware that research from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development shows that approximately 1 million people in this country are currently employed on zero-hours contracts. We know that many of these are exploitative, so will the Minister confirm whether the Government will use the opportunity of the forthcoming Queen’s Speech to legislate to end the misery that is suffered by so many in our communities?

Jennifer Willott: The hon. Lady will know that the Government looked at zero-hours contracts last summer, and are currently consulting on related issues such as exclusivity clauses and so on, which are just some of the problems that people have highlighted. Following on from that consultation, we will look at what measures need to be taken to ensure that such contracts are used positively and not to cause problems for those who are being exploited by them.

Export Support Services (SMEs)

Richard Graham: What steps he is taking to raise awareness of export support services among small and medium-sized businesses.

Michael Fallon: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Richard Graham: On my last trade envoy mission to Indonesia, I arranged for a film to be made of about a dozen SMEs that were with me before, during and after the mission in order to show it at later seminars across the country to convince small businesses that they can export successfully to faraway growth markets. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such low-cost films made by different trade envoys in different markets could be an attractive tool to encourage SMEs to export?

Mr Speaker: I have just learned something new. I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was a trade envoy, but I do now and I am pleased to learn it.

Michael Fallon: I agree that films can be a useful way of helping businesses to understand the benefits of exporting. My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that UKTI is producing a series of “Exporting is great” videos based on companies that feature in its campaign. There are currently four videos for Cundall, Angloco, Serious Games and for Lye Cross Farm, which exports cheese to France.

Mr Speaker: It is always useful to have a bit of additional information.

Topical Questions

Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Vincent Cable: My Department plays a key role in supporting the rebalancing of the economy through business to deliver growth while increasing skills and learning.

Jim Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State say what the latest position is regarding Hibu, as he met a small delegation of MPs some months ago to discuss the situation? He will know that many of the shareholders have lost a lot of money, especially those in Coventry.

Jennifer Willott: The hon. Gentleman is right that many people have lost significant amounts of money, and they are clearly keen to see action. The administrator has a statutory duty to report on the behaviour of Hibu’s directors, and that report is due before the end of May. At that point, the Secretary of State and the Insolvency Service will look at whether action needs to be taken to disqualify the directors.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Lancaster chamber of commerce and Lancaster and Morecambe college, ably supported by the Lancaster Guardian, on putting on courses for local businesses to demonstrate the benefits of apprenticeships? Does he accept that such local initiatives will build on this Government’s success in putting real apprenticeships back on the career map?

Matthew Hancock: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The Lancaster Guardian, like many local newspapers across the country, plays an important role in changing the culture, supporting apprenticeships and ensuring that young people know the opportunities that are available to them.

Chuka Umunna: In the last annual report and accounts of his Department, the Secretary of State said that the Department remained
	“on track to deliver against our spending review settlement.”
	However, the head of the National Audit Office said in the same report that there are significant uncertainties relating to billions of pounds worth of the Department’s assets, which will affect its financial position. Can the Secretary of State explain the discrepancy?

Vincent Cable: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the significant assets that were left with the dissolution of the regional development agencies. In fact, the job of managing that complex process has been extraordinarily successful.

Chuka Umunna: No, I refer to the student loans worth billions of pounds. Subsequent to the publication of those accounts, the NAO published a report that revealed that because Ministers have dramatically overestimated the number of graduates who will be able to repay the loans to pay for the Secretary of State’s higher tuition fees, he has, in effect, blown a hole in the Department’s budget. In fact, the Library estimates that from 2015-16 an extra £600 million a year will have to be found. Will
	the Secretary of State now explain how he will fix the problem without putting under threat the country’s scientists, students, universities and colleges?

Vincent Cable: This is an absurd misunderstanding of what is called the resource accounting and budgeting—RAB—charge system, which depends on long-term predictions of earnings growth. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if the recovery of the economy continues as it is, the RAB charge estimates will be substantially revised down and the imaginary black hole will very soon disappear.

Mark Menzies: What steps is the Department taking to support small and medium-sized businesses in Lancashire that are keen to export their goods and services?

Michael Fallon: We are committed to helping Lancashire companies to start exporting or to expand in new markets. Between April and December 2013, UKTI helped nearly 600 businesses across Lancashire and I am pleased to see my hon. Friend supporting those efforts by partnering with UKTI in delivering a successful export event for local businesses at the BAE site in his constituency last week.

Susan Elan Jones: I know that many of us were waiting with a great deal of interest for the Financial Conduct Authority’s new rules on payday lending, but does the Minister share my disappointment that it did not come up with a much tougher action plan on advertising?

Matthew Hancock: We were clear in our consultation on payday lending that we had put all the options for change on the table. We have taken the consultation seriously and that has included my meeting many of the stakeholders. We will do what it takes, but we will do what works—and what works for businesses large and small, focusing especially on the needs of small businesses—but we will not make changes just to satisfy calls and headlines. We will make sure that the system works as properly as possible.

Andrew Stephenson: Pendle businesses were delighted when the Government published the draft assisted area status map back in December, proposing to include part of Pendle for the first time. The current map, drawn up under the previous Government in 2007, did not include a single part of Pendle, yet the new map will include about 50% of the borough. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress in bringing the new map into force?

Michael Fallon: I am glad that my hon. Friend is pleased with the draft map. The Government are considering responses made in stage two of the assisted areas consultation to the draft map and the final map for 2014 to 2020 is due to come into effect on 1 July this year.

Michael McCann: A major hotel chain in my constituency employs a conveyor belt of
	young people. They are all on zero-hours contracts, tips are pooled and loosely accounted for and if workers have the audacity to question anything they are rewarded —punished—with fewer shifts. When will the Secretary of State stop consulting and start doing something about exploitation through zero-hours contracts?

Jennifer Willott: As I said in answer to a previous question, we are in the process of consulting. It is important that we get this right so that we do not penalise employees by getting the rules wrong. Many employees benefit from zero-hours contracts and we need to ensure that we take the right action rather than hasty action. We will respond to the consultation and make proposals to get rid of the exploitative factor in zero-hours contracts.

Mel Stride: Agriculture matters in my constituency yet the average age of my farmers is about 60, so we have a desperate need to encourage young people to go into farming. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Skills and Enterprise made a statement to the House yesterday about the reforms to the apprenticeship scheme, but will he outline how his reforms will encourage young people to use apprenticeships to go into farming?

Matthew Hancock: Of course, apprenticeships increasingly cover the whole economy, including farming and agriculture. The number of apprenticeships in agriculture has increased by a quarter and I am pleased to say that we are working with farmers in our trailblazer reforms of apprenticeships to get them and the agriculture sector to write the rules on what training is needed to ensure that apprenticeships work better for them in future.

John Cryer: Bogus self-employment continues to spread through the construction industry, in part because the number of HMRC employer compliance inspections has halved in four years. Does the Secretary of State regret that?

Vincent Cable: Of course we want to see maximum compliance. We realise that there are abuses in the construction industry and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are committing to stepping up enforcement action.

Robin Walker: I am very pleased with the Government’s rapid response in providing support for businesses that were directly affected by the floods, but evidence is emerging in Worcester of substantial indirect effects from transport disruptions, particularly to small businesses. I understand that Worcester received around £57,000 of funding in the first tranche of the floods fund. Can the Minister confirm that as more evidence emerges, there may be more money to support local SMEs?

Michael Fallon: I can confirm that a second tranche of funding will be made available under the business support scheme, and my Department is talking to all local authorities where businesses have been affected. Where they have been significantly affected, of course we want to help.

Tom Greatrex: My constituent, Mr Rundell, paid for an additional guarantee scheme from a high street retailer for an electrical item on the basis that he would get a replacement. It later turned out that that was not the case. What assessment has the consumer affairs Minister made of the way in which these policies are sold to constituents and to people across the country, because very often such a policy turns out not to be what they have been promised?

Jennifer Willott: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Consumer Rights Bill is in Committee and a number of Members here today are on that Committee. One of the issues we are looking at is warranties and guarantees and ensuring that consumers are aware of their statutory rights. There is protection for consumers. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent contact the Citizens Advice helpline, which will be able to point him in the right direction to ensure that if he has been mis-sold something, he can get the remedies due to him under the law.

Gordon Birtwistle: I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting Burnley last week to open a new industrial estate and visit a number of rapidly expanding companies that are embracing the Government’s economic policy. Does he agree that if the success being achieved in Burnley was replicated across the country, our economic position would be growing much better?

Vincent Cable: Yes, I had a very rewarding visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency and I think there were broader lessons. Much of the gloom about the economy that is being spread by the Opposition is not reflected in many manufacturing towns such as Burnley, which has an unemployment rate well below the national average and highly successful manufacturing companies, particularly in aerospace and the car supply chain. Many other towns and cities across the UK are now sharing that experience.

Seema Malhotra: The Secretary of State will be aware that business growth in the UK is dependent not just on exports but on investors. Recently I went on a visit to India and I discussed with businesses, including a Confederation of Indian Industry round table here, issues concerning UKTI. How successful does he believe UKTI is at creating investment opportunities for medium-sized businesses from abroad, particularly in our regions, so that we can see growth and investment partnerships?

Vincent Cable: UKTI is now regarded as an excellent service for business. It has a dedicated unit devoted to high value opportunities and big inward investment in the UK. I visited India recently and met a substantial number of Indian companies, both in the service sector, such as call centres, and in manufacturing, such as aerospace, that are targeting the UK to re-shore production here from India.

Philip Hollobone: Tomorrow in Kettering, with local employers, Tresham institute will launch Experience Kettering, a workplace experience
	scheme for hard-to-place young people aged 18 to 24. Would the Skills Minister congratulate Tresham institute on this initiative and send some words of encouragement?

Matthew Hancock: I would be delighted to congratulate Tresham institute on what it is doing to help young people into work. Work experience is a vital part of getting a job and I hope it is also working on the new traineeship programme, which is designed to help people into an apprenticeship or a sustainable job.

Barry Gardiner: What impact and what offence does the Secretary of State believe have been caused to Jewish and Muslim businesses by the statement from the chief veterinary officer today, threatening to ban the practice of shechita and halal?

Vincent Cable: I confess that I have not yet absorbed the significance of that statement. We will certainly consider it.

Greg Mulholland: The House is awaiting the response to the BIS consultation on pub companies, but now that the London Economics research has been exposed as fundamentally flawed and does not follow the brief given to it by BIS, and the firm has charged £26,000 for fieldwork that did not take place, will my right hon. Friend ignore this bunkum and listen to the Federation of Small Businesses’ research, which shows that the market rent-only option would benefit the UK economy by £78 million?

Jennifer Willott: As my hon. Friend knows, responses to last year’s Government consultation numbered in the thousands. We are looking at all the evidence that was put before us, including the research he mentioned. We also received evidence from thousands of individual tenants who contacted us to tell us about their circumstances
	and the impact the proposed measures could have on their business. We are looking at all of that and will bring forward proposals shortly.

Julie Hilling: Apprentices in Bolton West have told me that teachers tried to dissuade them from undertaking apprenticeships, particularly if they were high-flying students. What is the Department doing to educate teachers and ensure that proper careers guidance is in place?

Matthew Hancock: That is properly a matter for the Department for Education but, as I am also a Minister there I will take this opportunity to explain that we are introducing stronger statutory guidance. There was no guidance for schools before, so we have introduced a new legal requirement on them to secure independent and impartial advice, and we are introducing stronger statutory guidance to ensure that they do so, alongside the new National Careers Service, which this Government introduced.

Nadhim Zahawi: I will meet representatives of Jaguar Land Rover tomorrow to discuss their vision for their Gaydon headquarters. As it is international women’s day on 8 March, I will also be discussing the work they do to encourage women and girls to take up science, technology, engineering and maths. The Secretary of State is passionate about getting more women on boards and, importantly, into all sort of industries, so will he join me in celebrating international women’s day and reminding businesses that they need to do their bit to encourage more women into the sciences?

David Willetts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To encourage more women into science, we have specifically said that when universities bid for the new capital funding we are allocating to them, they will be required to show what they are doing to attract women into those essential subjects.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 10 March—Remaining stages of the Care Bill [Lords] (day 1).
	Tuesday 11 March—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Care Bill [Lords].
	Wednesday 12 March—Remaining stages of the Intellectual Property Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, followed by, if necessary, considerations of Lords amendments.
	Thursday 13 March—Statement on the publication of the sixth report from the Communities and Local Government Committee on local government procurement, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the badger cull. The Select Committee statement and the subject for debate were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 14 March—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 17 March will include:
	Monday 17 March—Consideration of Lords amendments.
	Tuesday 18 March—Consideration of Lords amendments.
	Wednesday 19 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
	Thursday 20 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
	Friday 21 March—The House will not be sitting.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 13 March will be:
	Thursday 13 March—A general debate on Commonwealth day.
	The House will also be aware that this morning I made a written statement announcing that Her Majesty the Queen will open a new Session of this Parliament on Tuesday 3 June 2014.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business.
	The events unfolding in Ukraine are of grave concern. There is agreement across the House that Russia’s actions are without justification and flout international law. European leaders are meeting today in Brussels. In view of the seriousness of the situation, will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be a statement on the outcome of that meeting in the House on Monday? Will he also undertake to ensure that the House is kept adequately informed about this rapidly developing situation without having to depend on inadvertent Downing street leaks?
	This Saturday is international women’s day. It is important that we reflect on the ongoing fight for women’s equality in this country and around the world. A shocking report published this week shows that one third of women in the European Union have suffered
	physical or sexual violence, but under this Government the number of domestic violence cases passed to the Crown Prosecution Service has fallen by 13%. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time on how to end the scourge of violence against women, and ensure that the perpetrators know that they will be brought to justice?
	If the Prime Minister is good at one thing, it is completely failing to provide answers during Prime Minister’s questions. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) asked the Government exactly how they are planning to achieve their aim of bringing back fox hunting for their Bullingdon buddies. The Prime Minister guaranteed the House a vote, so will the Leader of the House now confirm that, if the Government intend to use a statutory instrument to drive a coach and horses through the Hunting Act 2004, the statutory instrument will be taken on the Floor of the House and not upstairs?
	Next Thursday there will be a Back-Bench business debate on the badger cull, which will call for the cull to be stopped. The Government have already ignored one vote to stop the cull, but the emerging evidence is that the trials have been a failure and may even have made the situation worse. Will the Leader of the House tell us that, if there is another vote to stop the cull, the Government will this time abide by the will of the House?
	On Monday and Tuesday the House will debate the Care Bill. There is a lot in the Bill on which both sides of the House can agree, but unfortunately the Government are using it as a back-door route to give themselves the power to close any hospital they want. Given that the Leader of the House was the first to use trust special administrators in south London, and his successor was embarrassed in the High Court for trying to use them to close services at Lewisham hospital, will he now concede that any reconfiguration of hospital services should be clinically led and not done for purely financial reasons?
	I congratulate the Leader of the House on finally being able to give us the date of the last-gasp Queen’s Speech of this clapped-out, dysfunctional Government. A Queen’s Speech in June and an extended recess show that this is a zombie Government who have long since run out of steam. They may think they have cobbled together an agreement, but it has lasted less than a day. Today, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and a Home Office Minister will make totally contradictory speeches on immigration.
	The Chancellor ambushed the Liberal Democrats in the Cabinet on vetoing a European Union referendum, and with the Budget only two weeks away, he is too busy fighting with the Mayor of London about who will be the next Tory leader to think about his day job. As yesterday was Ash Wednesday, may I suggest that, hard as it may be, they may want to give up squabbling, conniving and plotting for Lent?
	This week the Deputy Prime Minister has been so desperate to grab the limelight that without any apparent sense of irony he has been busy accusing politicians of having brass necks. He is now so worried about the Liberal Democrats being completely wiped out in the European elections that he has agreed to a featherweight boxing match with Nigel Farage on television. We have
	a Deputy Prime Minister so desperate for attention that I am surprised he has not photoshopped himself into that selfie at the Oscars.

Andrew Lansley: I entirely agree that the events in Ukraine, as we discussed briefly last week, continue to be deeply disturbing. It is important, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, that we continue to set out clearly that there will be costs and consequences to the Russian Government if they continue, as they are doing, to breach international law and to intrude on the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Today’s summit in Brussels gives us an opportunity, which the Prime Minister is using, to set out clearly the nature of those costs and consequences. We are looking for de-escalation, and it must be made clear to the Russian Government if that if they do not take action to de-escalate and to move back from their position, robust action will follow.
	The hon. Lady asked about future business. Of course, I expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to update the House following today’s discussions in Brussels and on such events that may occur over the next few days. As she knows, following the Foreign Secretary’s statement on Tuesday, we will keep the House fully informed. I will continue to discuss with my colleagues how we can ensure that the views of the House can be fully expressed. I think that will be helpful and I hope that it will further reinforce internationally the outrage that we feel about events in Ukraine.
	I am delighted that the House will have so many opportunities to mark international women’s day, including through the Backbench Business Committee’s scheduling of a debate in this Chamber this afternoon, and this afternoon’s debate on women and the economy in Westminster Hall. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee and others have secured a very important debate on Monday on the petition relating to female genital mutilation. There is a wide range of actions on this.
	In the particular instance the hon. Lady mentioned, I share her concern about the survey that was published this week. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has published a ministerial statement today setting out that there will be an update of the violence against women and girls action plan, which will be published on Saturday. That will provide an opportunity to highlight the progress that we have made in tackling violence against women and girls. Last year, we extended the definition of domestic violence to include controlling, coercive behaviour; introduced two new stalking offences; and in December launched the This is Abuse campaign to highlight that it is not just physical violence that makes a relationship abusive. We have also announced the roll-out of Clare’s law and of domestic violence protection orders, and ring-fenced nearly £40 million of funding for specialist local support services and national helplines to support people in abusive situations.
	The hon. Lady asked about the statutory instrument relating to the number of dogs used to flush out foxes for shooting. I am perfectly happy to discuss this through the usual channels. As she will know, it is always our practice to ensure that, where it is requested and sought by the House, there is an opportunity for proper debate on and scrutiny of statutory instruments, so we will of course look at that. I have to say, however, that I do not regard this, in any sense, as a debate about undermining
	the Act that the House passed. It is quite separate from the question of what should be the position in relation to the Hunting Act more generally, whereby the coalition agreement said that under the coalition programme we would look for a debate in the House, and we have not had an opportunity to do that yet.
	The proper place for Ministers to set out the position on the badger cull is in the debate. The Backbench Business Committee has scheduled that debate for next Thursday, and I am very happy to let it take place. As the shadow Leader of the House knows, Ministers take account of Back-Bench motions, and we have done so in the past in relation to the badger cull. She may recall that we brought the issue back before the House before the badger cull pilots were undertaken, and there was a further vote that endorsed the position taken by the Government.
	When we debate the Care Bill next week we will look at clause 119 and further amendments relating to trust special administrators. As far as I am aware, it has always been the case that whatever the trust special administrator brought forward, it was necessary, as was the case in relation to Lewisham, that it should meet the need to put services not only on a financially sustainable basis but on a clinically improving basis; the two have to be recognised as being linked. In south-east London, it was not possible to sustain the quality of services in the situation in which South London Healthcare NHS Trust found itself, and that is why the trust special administrator was appointed. The powers that the Secretary of State has and the powers that are sought should enable the clinical services for patients to be improved, and that is how they will be used.
	I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s welcome of the announcement of the date of the state opening of Parliament. Last year I published the date on 7 March, so I managed to make it a day earlier this year; we are trying hard to give the House maximum notice. Her point about the lack of business is misplaced. I have announced for next week four days’ business, three of which consist of substantial progress on Government Bills. I reiterate to her again that I do not regard, and the House should not regard, days allocated to Opposition debates and to Backbench Business Committee debates as anything other than a substantial use of the House’s time. Debating Government legislation is not our only purpose in being here. In recent years, and during this Parliament, the House has established a very positive track record of debating the issues that matter to the people of this country alongside making progress on Government legislation.
	There is no merit in filling the House with legislation for its own sake. The previous Labour Government put 53 Bills before the House in one Session. [Interruption.] I will stop in a moment. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) will have his chance—he always does. In the penultimate Session of the previous Parliament, the previous Government introduced 27 Government Bills, while in this Session of this Parliament, this Government have introduced 24 Government Bills, so I completely refute the proposition that we are not dealing with business—and ours are rather better Bills, if I may say so.
	The hon. Lady asked about the Deputy Prime Minister’s debate with Nigel Farage. I am really pleased he is doing it, because I think it will be very welcome if the
	Deputy Prime Minister takes the opportunity to set out to the people of this country the sheer lack of effort, energy and commitment of UKIP MEPs in the European Parliament. Happily, in my region, David Campbell Bannerman left UKIP, joined the Conservative party and is more responsible in what he does and puts in much more effort, but others have lamentably failed to represent the people who voted to send them to the European Parliament in the last election and who I hope will not make the same mistake again.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. As usual, dozens of hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. However, I remind the House that there are two further ministerial statements to follow, first from the Home Secretary and then from the Secretary of State for Defence. Thereafter, there will be a statement by the Chair of the Defence Committee and two debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. Therefore, there is a premium on time and, exceptionally—I emphasise the word “exceptionally”—it may not be possible today to get everybody in, which, as the House knows, is my usual practice. There is an imperative, therefore, on Back and Front-Benchers alike to be brief.

Paul Beresford: In the light of one of the statements you have mentioned, Mr Speaker, and the publication in a few minutes of the Privileges Committee report, will the Leader of the House consider a debate on a positive aspect of the relationship between UK police and MPs? I am, of course, referring to the little-known—it should be publicised—police service parliamentary scheme, which has successfully brought police and MPs together. It started in 1999 and operates under the guidance of Sir Neil Thorne. An early, short debate would be timely, because the new scheme for this year has just commenced.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a very good point. Just as Members have very much appreciated participating in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, they have equally benefited from participating in the police service parliamentary scheme. A meeting was held last week to set out what the scheme has achieved and to look forward. I hope Members will take advantage of it. Many of us benefit from the opportunity to spend time with the police service in our constituencies, but the scheme offers the opportunity to understand more systematically the character of policing, not just in our own constituencies, but elsewhere too. In the context of all the debates we are having about policing in this country, it would be wonderful if more Members demonstrated to the police service their commitment to understand the nature and challenges of policing today.

Luciana Berger: Last month, Liverpool city council won a High Court action, which ruled that cuts by the Government to European funding for Liverpool were unlawful. Last night, Liverpool city council had to agree £156 million-worth of cuts, which will impact severely on the provision of mandatory services, including social care to the elderly and children, yet yesterday the Prime Minister
	said that he does not believe the people of Liverpool are being short-changed. Can we please have an urgent debate on the Government’s blind spot when it comes to Liverpool?

Andrew Lansley: The Government have no blind spot in relation to Liverpool. On the contrary, many of the things we are doing are helping Liverpool. Speaking personally, when I was Secretary of State for Health, two of the most important future building projects to which I gave my personal support were the rebuilding of Liverpool Broadgreen and Alder Hey hospitals. That does not ignore Liverpool; it supports Liverpool in the continuation of one of its most important services. I will not reiterate the points the Prime Minister made yesterday. He set out very clearly the figures for the level of support received per household in Liverpool relative to other places.

Matthew Offord: Between 1997 and 2011, the number of prescriptions for methylphenidate hydrochloride—also known as Ritalin—rose from 92,079 to 929,839, which is a 1,000% increase. As the drug is commonly used to treat children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, may we have an urgent debate about the effects on society of drugging a generation of children?

Andrew Lansley: I know that there have been such debates, if not in the most recent past. If my hon. Friend and other Members feel strongly about these issues, they might together choose to ask the Backbench Business Committee to find time to explore them—if not in the Chamber, then in Westminster Hall.
	As my hon. Friend knows, a range of factors affects the number of prescriptions. During as long a period as 1997 to 2010, much of course happened in relation to awareness about such conditions and the overall level of prescribing and treatment for ADHD generally. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance in 2006 and the clinical guidelines in 2008 have had an impact on prescribing by clinicians. I say all that merely to illustrate that there is a range of issues, but he is right to say that it is sometimes useful for this House to take the time to look at them.

Dave Watts: Given the fact that Barclays and Lloyds bank have now created more millionaires than the national lottery, as reported in the Daily Mirror, may we have a debate in the House about why this Government are allowing the banks to continue to rip off customers and Britain?

Andrew Lansley: It is not this Government; we are doing no such thing. This Government have seen the level of bankers’ bonuses substantially reduced compared with the rate under the previous Government. It is astonishing. I will not go on about this, but when Labour Members were in government they mismanaged regulation of the financial services sector to such a point that we had bust banks and immense bail-outs, with bonuses wildly out of control, but they have the brass neck to stand up and complain about the reduced level of bankers’ bonuses being implemented under this Government. Frankly, we are making very clear that where we have shareholdings, bonuses have to be within a very controlled framework, and they are coming down relative to last year.

Peter Bone: We are very lucky to have had some excellent Leaders of the House. I wonder whether the current Leader of the House might make a full oral statement next week on votes in this House. As a Member of the House, I have always thought that when this House votes, the Government are bound by that vote, but that does not necessarily seem to happen when Back-Bench motions are debated. Will he make a statement on that next week?

Andrew Lansley: I can tell my hon. Friend that it has never been the case that a motion in this House binds the Government, except in so far as a vote is taken on legislation. With the greatest respect to him, whatever he may believe to be the case, a motion in this House has never bound the Government, except in such circumstances.
	To repeat what I said to the shadow Leader of the House, time and again, even if the Government have not agreed with what was expressed in a motion passed after a Backbench Business Committee debate, we have always taken the motion seriously and responded to it. For example, I recall that hon. Members felt strongly about the matter relating to the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. We did not agree with them, but a lot of care was taken to explain why we did not agree and to respond to the House on that subject. We will continue to act in that way.

Diana Johnson: I am very pleased that we will have a debate next week about the removal of railway rolling stock from the north to improve services in the south, but may we have a wider debate on exactly what the coalition Government have got against the north, and to look at the cuts to major northern cities and northern arts funding, and the delay in giving any assistance to areas of the north that flooded in December?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady asks that question when it is this Government who are bringing forward HS2, which will make the biggest difference since the Victorian era in terms of providing capacity and creating high-quality links between northern cities, to the rest of the rail network and beyond London. The Network Rail programme is the largest programme of rail investment since the Victorian era and many of the areas that will benefit are in the north of the country.

Tessa Munt: A £3-million gamma knife radiotherapy machine is sitting unused at University College hospital in London because NHS England refuses to send cancer patients there. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Health to look into that as a matter of urgency?

Andrew Lansley: I will, of course, raise that matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as the hon. Lady requests. However, the commissioning of specialist services is a matter for NHS England under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, as she will recall. I completely understand what she says. I have seen the latest radiotherapy machines of the kind that she describes, which perform stereotactic radiotherapy. That is an interesting new treatment, but it is not appropriate in all circumstances.

Nigel Dodds: Some good work has been done in this Parliament to hold down fuel duty, and I pay tribute to the Government for that. However, may we have a debate on the benefits of cutting fuel duty, such as boosting jobs, boosting the economy and helping hard-pressed families? Given that it would be self-financing, would it not be a good idea to think about it in the run-up to the Budget?

Andrew Lansley: I will tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the right hon. Gentleman’s thoughts in the run-up to the Budget. We will, of course, debate those issues during the Budget debate. I share his sense of how important it is to people that fuel duty has been frozen for the entire Parliament, with the result that it will be 20p per litre lower than it would have been under the escalator put in place by the previous Government.

Andrew Jones: In the last Parliament, the number of health visitors dropped by 16%. In this Parliament, that trend has been reversed and the number has gone up by 1,000. There is an even faster increase in the number of midwives, which is up by 1,500, with a further 5,000 in training. Please may we have a debate about the improvements in maternity services? That would allow me to highlight the recent survey by the Care Quality Commission, which put Harrogate district hospital’s maternity services among the very best in the country.

Andrew Lansley: I am glad to have the opportunity to congratulate the staff at Harrogate district hospital. I visited it some years ago and know that it is a fine district general hospital.
	My hon. Friend makes a good general point. In about 1998 or 1999, the last Labour Government abandoned universal health visiting services. Because we are expanding the number of health visitors, by the end of this Parliament, we will again see a universal service for all parents coming home with a new baby, so there will be an opportunity for health visitors to work with every family. That will make a big difference by starting people off on the right track.
	On midwives, for years after 2001, the previous Government ignored the increase of about 16% in the number of babies being born in this country. There was nothing like a commensurate increase in the number of midwives. Happily, since 2010, this Government have more than kept pace with the increase in the number of babies being born and have been making up that deficit. The increase in the number of midwives will help us further to improve maternity services.

Jim Sheridan: Notwithstanding the previous comments of the Leader of the House on bankers’ bonuses, does he understand that millions of our constituents are at a loss to understand why British bankers are acting with impunity? Out of respect for you, Mr Speaker, I will temper my language. If these people continue to hold the country to ransom by threatening to leave the country, please let the reprobates go.

Andrew Lansley: The Government have been very clear that in banks where we exercise a shareholding responsibility on behalf of the taxpayer, the level of bonuses will
	come down, bonuses should be paid in a form that can be recovered if people do not deliver and bonuses should often be deferred so that they can be linked directly to the long-term increase in the value of the business and the benefit to customers. Of course, there are many banks in which we do not have that shareholding responsibility. Those banks are subject to the law and to their shareholders, but that is as far as it goes.
	What is important is that we have a more competitive banking system. That is what the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 and the measures that we are putting in place will achieve. There should be more challenger banks. People can and should make their own judgments about which banks are providing them with the right service.

Glyn Davies: This afternoon a general debate on Welsh affairs will be held in this Chamber. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a hugely welcome development, so close as it is to St David’s day, and that it should be standard practice to hold a similar debate every year as part of the programme of the House?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and in this instance credit goes to the Backbench Business Committee. It has demonstrated that it is responsive to Members in this House, and the Welsh affairs debate today is very positive. I hope, for example, that Members will look forward to the changes that the Government are planning to bring forward in the draft Wales Bill, and it might be an opportunity for those on the Opposition Front Bench to explain why they are opposed to further devolution of tax powers to the Welsh Government.

Madeleine Moon: Last week we debated the impact of welfare reform on people with disabilities. Following that debate, I was contacted by a deaf constituent, who said that she wanted to follow the debate, but had been unable to do so because of the lack of signing or subtitles. May we have a debate on how we can improve accessibility to debates in this House for people who are deaf?

Andrew Lansley: There may be an opportunity to discuss that at some point but I cannot identify when it will be. The hon. Lady makes a good point and if I may, I will discuss it with colleagues on the House of Commons Commission and elsewhere. It might form part of the agenda when we discuss matters such as parliamentary broadcasting with the BBC.

Julian Sturdy: May we have a statement about the criteria for environmental impact assessments to be carried out on wind turbine applications to ensure they are properly scrutinised? In my constituency, the local council has decided that such an assessment is not required on a forthcoming planning application in a sensitive area, but I fear, in my generosity, that it may have misinterpreted current guidance.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend knows that planning regulations set out the procedure for establishing whether an environmental impact assessment is required. Not every wind turbine development will require one, and
	the need for an EIA depends on a proposal’s size and location, and whether it is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. I hope that when my hon. Friend looks at the planning regulations—as I know he will have done—he will be able to challenge if necessary whatever decision his local authority may have made. If I may, I will raise the issue with my hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government, and he may wish to have a further conversation with them about whatever interpretation the local authority has taken.

Graham Jones: May we have an urgent Government statement on the great train robbery? In east Lancashire we have a brand new line with no trains on it, and last week we found out that the trans-Pennine trains are being moved to the Prime Minister’s constituency in the south. It seems to me there is a huge north-south shift, and that the north is being short-changed.

Andrew Lansley: I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport if they will respond directly to the hon. Gentleman on that issue, and he may wish to raise it at Transport questions. As far as I am aware—I stand to be corrected—such matters are governed not so much by Government policy but as a consequence of the way train operating companies and Network Rail behave.

Mark Williams: Throughout the world, 57 million children are denied basic access to primary education, and excellent work has been undertaken by the Global Partnership for Education. May we have a debate on its work, and on the need for our Government to renew their commitment and replenish its funds in June?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I know that hon. Members feel strongly about this issue. The renewal of the millennium development goals and our determination to try to meet them is something that we can be proud of, but we need to ensure that we make progress, because we have not always made the progress that we want to make collectively. In this country, we can be proud of what we are doing, because—it is the first time it has been done by any major country—we are achieving the goal of providing 0.7% of gross national income in support of our international development aid. That enables us to speak with great authority internationally when it comes to meeting those objectives.

Gavin Shuker: To mark Fairtrade fortnight, I met this morning with farmers from the Kuapa co-operative in Ghana who sell Fairtrade cocoa that goes into Divine chocolate. May we have a debate in Government time to review what more might be done to boost Fairtrade?

Andrew Lansley: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has to say and welcome the fact that he was able to meet the producers of Fairtrade chocolate. Hotel Chocolat is close to my constituency, and I would be glad to talk to them about their use of Fairtrade chocolate. I cannot promise a debate immediately, but the Backbench Business Committee can consider such issues if several Members feel strongly enough to bring them to it.

Martin Vickers: The Government have recognised the importance of the Humber estuary for the renewable energy sector and in December the Transport Secretary approved a new port facility and energy park. However, two petitions have objected to the proposal, triggering a special parliamentary procedure. To make sure that we get the much needed jobs and growth, can the Leader of the House ensure that the process makes progress as quickly as possible?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend once again shows his consistent pursuit of the interests of his constituents, and I completely understand that. He will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of the project before all the statutory processes have been completed. Now that the petitioning period has ended, the matter is in the hands of the Chairman of Ways and Means and his counterpart in the Lords, and I am sure that they will give it consideration in a timely manner.

Kevin Brennan: This question genuinely requires just a yes or no answer. Can the Leader of the House confirm, as per the coalition agreement, that there will definitely be a debate and vote on the repeal of the Hunting Act 2004 during this Parliament?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman may want a yes or no answer, but he will not get one. As must always be the case, the answer is subject to the progress of business and an agreement that we will bring such a measure forward at any time.

Bob Blackman: Earlier this week, Raquel De Andrade was imprisoned for a string of offences. She was apprehended at Harrow registry office trying to marry a Nigerian national who had overstayed his visa. Her big problem was that she was already legally married to three other men who had also overstayed their visas, and she was caught when officials became suspicious because she wore the same wedding dress each time. On a serious point, may we have a debate in Government time on what extra support can be given to efforts to combat the menace of bogus and sham marriages?

Andrew Lansley: It is an abuse, and it is important that it is dealt with. My hon. Friend will recall that we are taking further powers in the Immigration Bill which is now before the House of Lords. I will raise the issue with my colleagues at the Home Office, but I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured that we take it seriously. We are legislating on it, and he may have an opportunity to raise it further in Home Office questions or in consideration of Lords amendments to the Immigration Bill in due course.

Nicholas Dakin: In June 2011, the House made clear its view that wild animals should not be used in circuses. In March 2012, the Government gave a commitment to the House and the country that they would bring forward legislation to deal with the issue. Can the Leader of the House say when that legislation will be brought forward?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that I am not in a position to pre-empt announcements on the introduction of legislation, especially in the run- up to the Queen’s Speech.

Chris White: This week, Dennis Eagle, a local business, was awarded an £8.5 million grant under the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative. This will create 52 jobs and safeguard another 32 jobs across the supply chain. May we have a debate on reshoring and supply chains, which are essential to re-establishing the UK as a centre for manufacturing?

Andrew Lansley: What my hon. Friend says is very encouraging. I am pleased to have the opportunity to join him in congratulating Dennis Eagle on its advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative award. We are in favour of all Eagles, in their place—[Laughter.] He makes a good point. Some recent examples of reshoring have been very encouraging and demonstrate the tip of the iceberg. Those looking to increase manufacturing and supply manufacturing jobs no longer need to go abroad to be competitive, and that makes an enormous difference. Our backing for skills, apprenticeships, supply chains and innovation in new technologies is creating the right environment. On Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills announced further supply chain funding, which is another practical example of well-targeted Government support helping UK firms to keep that progress going.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Leader of the House aware that crowdfunding allows many people, particularly women, to get into business start-ups for the first time? This is an area that has not been colonised by men, so, in the week of international women’s day, will he arrange an early debate? The Financial Conduct Authority released its recommendations on the regulation of crowdfunding this morning. Getting the regulation right will provide a wonderful opportunity to expand and become the international centre for crowdfunding.

Andrew Lansley: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter. I have not had an opportunity to look at what the FCA has had to say. He has, rightly, raised this issue before and I hope he finds today’s publication positive. We certainly want to see an improvement in the sources of funding available to small business. He will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills say how we want to achieve additional sources of funding for small businesses, through not only banks but a wider range of sources. Crowdfunding is for entrepreneurs. There are 400,000 more businesses than there were in 2010, many of which were set up by women. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to raise the issue further in this afternoon’s Westminster Hall debate on the contribution of women to the economy. If we can raise the rate of women entrepreneurship in this country to the level in the United States, it will dramatically increase our prospects for growth. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: It has been suggested to me that we have now had the debate. I think that is perhaps a tad unkind, but I am grateful for the advice.

Bob Russell: May we have a debate on credit rating companies, which can have a negative impact on some businesses because of false commentary? For example, a company called Experian
	claims that a company in my constituency, Fast Food Supplies (Anglia), is high risk and has a bad credit record. That is not true: the business has been operating successfully for 26 years and is expanding, moving into bigger premises and taking on more employees.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Credit rating is used widely by reputable companies, of which Experian is one. None the less, it needs to be done accurately. I think he and his constituents will find that Experian, as a highly reputable company, is as concerned as anybody to ensure that its credit ratings are accurate, but the House will appreciate that he is representing his constituents’ interests and will continue to do so.

John Cryer: May we have a debate on racism, particularly anti-Semitism? The repellent behaviour of Nicolas Anelka, and the pathetic and spineless response of the Football Association, remind us that racism is always there and always requires vigilance.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, with which I completely agree. I cannot promise a debate immediately, but there were debates to mark Holocaust memorial day earlier in the year, and I hope that the House will continue to have opportunities to convey its abhorrence of racism and our determination to tackle it wherever we see it raise its ugly head.

Neil Parish: Russia has abused the sovereignty of Ukraine by marching into Crimea. Is there any chance of an urgent debate on the matter next week?

Andrew Lansley: As I said to the shadow Leader of the House, it is evident from the number of questions asked by Members in response to the Foreign Secretary’s statement on Tuesday that, in due course, there will be good reason for many of those Members to have an opportunity to make a somewhat longer contribution in a debate. I cannot promise such a debate next week, because Government legislation will be debated on three days out of four and the Backbench Business Committee will be using its slot on Thursday, but my colleagues and I will think about when it might be best for one to take place.

Barry Gardiner: May we have a debate on the importance of public consultation in the setting of Government policy? This morning, with no consultation and on the basis of a very small and flimsy scientific report which is hotly disputed, the chief veterinary officer announced that the Government might be minded to ban the practices of shechita and halal. May we have a debate on precisely why that has not been subject to any public consultation on the Government’s part?

Andrew Lansley: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not recall the chief veterinary officer’s saying such a thing. I understood that it was said by the new head of the British Veterinary Association, who, of course, was not speaking on behalf of the Government.

Greg Mulholland: May we have a debate on how we can encourage more families to adopt? Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming Yorkshire and Humber’s adoption day—which was staged by an organisation called Being Family—given that there are currently 116 children in the Leeds area who would like to be adopted?

Andrew Lansley: Many of us, as constituency Members, are aware of the benefits of adoption—particularly for the youngest children—and the need for it to take place more quickly. I hope the hon. Gentleman will find that the Children and Families Bill will make a substantial difference. There have been more adoptions in the last year than there were in the year before, but I expect the Bill to help more children for whom it is appropriate to be adopted, and to be adopted sooner.

Andrew Stephenson: Pendle’s work force contains one of the highest proportions of manufacturing workers in the United Kingdom. I have been delighted to encounter an increasing number of female engineers, including Annette Weekes, the managing director of PDS (CNC) Engineering Ltd in Nelson, whom I met most recently last month. As we approach international women’s day, may we have a debate on what more the Government could do to boost the trend and get more women into engineering?

Andrew Lansley: I hope that we shall be able to achieve more in that direction, because it is important for us to do so. I have been very impressed by the number of young women who are entering apprenticeship schemes, often in engineering, not least when I have visited organisations that are operating such schemes. The pathway through qualifications alongside work that apprenticeships encapsulate often makes them more interesting and attractive to women than the prospect of simply starting work in engineering and working their way up, and it seems to be more effective. I was involved in the promotion of women in science and engineering way back. It is a long-standing objective, and we still have a long way to go, but I hope that a great many other women will be able to follow the example of Annette Weekes.

Stuart Andrew: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has had an opportunity to see a report on the BBC website headed “The march of the postcode battlers”. It refers to a number of campaigns by residents who are highlighting problems caused by their postcodes. Residents of Tyersal, Thornbury and Apperley Bridge in my constituency have long complained that, given that technically they live in Leeds, their Bradford postcode causes numerous problems when they are trying to use services such as health and education. May we have a debate to establish how widespread the problem is in the United Kingdom, and what solutions might be found?

Andrew Lansley: The looks on Members’ faces and their nodding heads suggest this is quite a widespread problem, and I sympathise with my hon. Friend and his constituents, not least because I live in Cambridgeshire yet my postal address says I am in Hertfordshire and my postcode says I am in Stevenage, but I am in neither of those places—I say that with the greatest respect to Stevenage.
	We fought for years to get CB postcodes instead of SG postcodes and we have failed thus far. Royal Mail is very clear that there are major costs and consequences associated with trying to change the input codes and they would have to be changed all over the country, but I know that there are many Members who, with their constituents, feel this is something worth doing.

Andrew Bridgen: I have recently been contacted by a constituent who expressed extreme disappointment that, having used a search engine, he had paid a third-party website for a European health card, which, he later discovered, could be provided free by the Government. I am aware that a number of Members have similar cases relating to passport issues, visas and driving licences. May we therefore have a debate into what Government can do to protect consumers from unwittingly paying for services that the Government provide for free?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good point and he is not the first Member to raise it at business questions recently. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), the employment relations and consumer affairs Minister, announced on Tuesday that websites which try to pass themselves off as legitimate Government services will come under the trading standards spotlight. We have committed an additional £120,000 in this financial year to the National Trading Standards Board so that it can investigate such websites and be better equipped to take enforcement action against them. I hope that provides some reassurance to my hon. Friend and other Members. Government and Members need continuously to identify— and perhaps expose, through the kind of questions my hon. Friend has raised—the issue to our constituents so that they know they need to be careful about potentially misleading false websites.

Oliver Colvile: As has been mentioned, Saturday is international women’s day. As my right hon. Friend may know,
	Plymouth city council and Devon and Cornwall police run a groundbreaking initiative called Encompass, under which the council rings every primary school each morning to check that children are in school. One sign of domestic violence is when kids do not turn up. May we have a debate on best practice, so that we can share what happens in other communities?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the steps being taken in his constituency and Plymouth by Devon and Cornwall police. As he knows, the Government are committed to working with the police and other criminal justice agencies to ensure the response to domestic violence and abuse offers the best possible protection to victims. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—who is alongside me on the Front Bench and will have heard what my hon. Friend said—has commissioned Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to conduct a review across all police forces of the response to domestic abuse, and we will consider the case for any change to the law against the backdrop of HMIC’s findings and recommendations.

Marcus Jones: I was recently honoured to speak at the inaugural meeting of the inspirational Nuneaton women’s business club. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Lorraine Phimister of Willson Solicitors and Cheryl Stanley of Stewart, Fletcher and Barrett accountants on starting this important group, and may we have a debate on how we can encourage more women into business?

Andrew Lansley: I am glad that my hon. Friend is able directly to follow up the theme of international women’s day, which is about inspiring change. That is a very positive approach. In a later debate, he might be able to amplify how the examples of those such as Lorraine and Cheryl show that women can be successful entrepreneurs and make an ever-increasing contribution to the economy of this country.

Ellison Review

Theresa May: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Mark Ellison review. In addition, I would like to update the House on work to improve standards of integrity in the police.
	In July 2012, I commissioned Mark Ellison QC to conduct a review examining allegations of corruption surrounding the initial, deeply flawed, investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. I also asked Mr Ellison to examine whether the Metropolitan police had evidence of corruption that it did not disclose to the Macpherson inquiry. In June last year, Peter Francis, a former special demonstration squad undercover officer, made a number of allegations about his previous role, including an allegation that he was deployed to gather evidence with which to “smear” the family of Stephen Lawrence. In response, I expanded the terms of reference of Mark Ellison’s review, encouraging him to go as far and wide as necessary to investigate the new claims.
	The House will also be aware of Operation Herne, which was set up by the Metropolitan police in October 2011 to investigate allegations of misconduct by undercover police officers in its former special demonstration squad—the SDS. Operation Herne is led by Derbyshire’s chief constable, Mick Creedon, and particular elements are overseen by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Mick Creedon’s investigation has worked closely with Mark Ellison and will publish its own report on the allegations made by Peter Francis later today.
	I will now set out the key findings of the Ellison review. The full report has been published and is available in the Vote Office. The totality of what the report shows is deeply troubling, and I would like also to set out my response. I asked Mark Ellison to review and answer three key questions. First: was there evidence of corruption in the Metropolitan police during the Lawrence investigation? Secondly: was that evidence withheld from the Macpherson inquiry? And thirdly: was inappropriate undercover activity directed at the Lawrence family?
	On corruption, Ellison finds that specific allegations of corruption were made against one of the officers who had worked on the investigation of Stephen Lawrence’s murder—Detective Sergeant John Davidson. The allegations were made by a police officer to his superiors but were not brought to the attention of Macpherson. Ellison finds that this lack of disclosure was a “significant failure” by the Metropolitan police. Ellison has looked at the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s 2006 report into these allegations, as well as the Metropolitan police’s own review in 2012. He finds that both investigations were inadequate.
	Ellison also finds the Metropolitan Police Service’s record-keeping on its own investigations into police corruption a cause of real concern. Key evidence was the subject of mass shredding in 2003, and a hard drive containing some of the relevant data was discovered only in November 2013, after more than a year of the MPS searching for it. As a result of this, Ellison has serious concerns that further relevant material that would show corruption has not been revealed because it cannot be found or has been destroyed.
	The other question that Mark Ellison set out to answer was whether inappropriate undercover activity had been directed at the Lawrence family. Ellison finds that SDS officers were deployed into activist groups that sought to influence the Lawrence family. On Peter Francis’s allegation that he was tasked with “smearing” the Lawrence family, Ellison has found no surviving record that supports the claim. However, given the lack of written records from the era, and since such tasking would have been more likely to have been in oral, rather than written, form, Ellison says that he is “unable to reject” the claims Mr Francis has made.
	Aside from the specific claims made by Mr Francis, Ellison reports on a separate and “wholly inappropriate” use of an undercover officer during the Macpherson inquiry. Ellison finds that an officer, referred to as N81, had been deployed into one of the groups seeking to influence the Lawrence family campaign, while the Macpherson inquiry was ongoing. Ellison refers to N81 as
	“an MPS spy in the Lawrence family camp during the course of judicial proceedings in which the family was the primary party in opposition to the MPS”.
	As part of his deployment, N81 reported back to the SDS personal information about the Lawrence family, as well as what is described as “tactical intelligence” around the inquiry. In August 1998, the SDS arranged for N81 to meet Richard Walton, then a detective inspector involved in writing the Met’s submissions to the Macpherson inquiry. SDS files record that they had a “fascinating and valuable exchange”. Ellison finds that the opening of this channel of communication was “completely improper”. He finds no discernible public benefit to the meeting taking place, and says that had it been disclosed at the time of the inquiry
	“it would have been seen as the MPS trying to achieve some secret advantage in the Inquiry from SDS undercover deployment.”
	Ellison finds that if it had been made public in 1998,
	“serious public disorder of the very kind so feared by the MPS might well have followed”.
	In addition, Ellison has reported on the SDS more widely. He comments on the extraordinary level of secrecy observed about any disclosure that might risk exposing an undercover officer. That meant that the SDS operated as if exempt from the proper rules of disclosure in criminal cases, and that there is real potential for miscarriages of justices to have occurred. In particular, Ellison says that there is an inevitable potential for SDS officers to have been viewed by those they infiltrated as encouraging, and participating in, criminal behaviour. He refers to officers in criminal trials failing to reveal their true identities, meaning that crucial information that should have been disclosed was not given to the defence and the court; and he finds that undercover officers sometimes failed to correct evidence given in court which they knew was wrong. That means that there is a chance that people could have been convicted for offences when they should not have been. We must therefore establish if there have been miscarriages of justice.
	The Ellison review has also investigated the way in which Duwayne Brooks was treated by the Metropolitan police. The House will recall that Mr Brooks was a close friend of Stephen Lawrence and was with him when he was murdered. Mark Ellison finds that the MPS’s handling of a 1993 prosecution against Mr Brooks was unsatisfactory,
	but he finds no evidence that this was a deliberate attempt to smear Mr Brooks. Ellison also finds evidence of inappropriate reporting on Mr Brooks from an SDS officer. This included intelligence on Mr Brooks’s relationship with the Lawrence family and on the way in which Mr Brooks intended to approach various legal proceedings, including civil action against the Met. Ellison says that that line of reporting “should have been terminated”, but instead continued from 1999 to 2001. Finally, Mark Ellison finds that the covert recording of Mr Brooks and his solicitor in a meeting with the MPS in May 2000, while not unlawful, was neither necessary nor justified.
	The findings I have outlined today are profoundly shocking. They will be of grave concern to everyone in the House and beyond, and I would like now to set out what I believe needs to happen in response. The Ellison review makes a number of findings in relation to the issue of corruption. Ellison finds that there remain some outstanding lines of inquiry which could be investigated both in relation to alleged corruption by a specific officer, and possibly by other officers. That is of the utmost seriousness, and I have asked the director general of the National Crime Agency to consider quickly how best an investigation can be taken forward into this aspect of Mr Ellison’s findings and to report back to me. Ellison also refers to possible links between an allegedly corrupt officer involved in the Stephen Lawrence case—DS Davidson—and the investigation into the murder of Daniel Morgan. Ellison finds that the Daniel Morgan panel may therefore uncover material relevant to the question of corruption, and so it is key that the Daniel Morgan panel continues its important work.
	Operation Herne has previously found that the Home Office was instrumental in the establishment of the SDS in 1968, in the aftermath of violence at the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations in Grosvenor square. It has also previously found that the Home Office initially provided direct funding for the SDS. The Home Office was the police authority for the Metropolitan Police at that time, so the interests of transparency require that we all understand what role the Department played. My permanent secretary has therefore commissioned a forensic external review in order to establish the full extent of the Home Office’s knowledge of the SDS.
	In identifying the possibility that SDS secrecy may have caused miscarriages of justice, Mark Ellison recommends a further review to identify the specific cases affected. I have accepted that recommendation and Mark Ellison will lead the work, working with the CPS and reporting to the Attorney-General. That will mean that proper consideration can be given to those cases and to any implications that may arise. In doing that work, Mark Ellison and the CPS will be provided with whatever access they judge necessary to relevant documentary evidence.
	Operation Herne is a criminal investigation, and it is only through a criminal investigation that criminal or misconduct charges can be brought. It is vital that we allow Operation Herne to bring its current criminal investigations to a proper conclusion, which Chief Constable Creedon informs me should take around 12 months.
	There are people inside and outside our country who seek to commit serious crimes and to harm our communities, our way of life, and our nation and who
	wish to harm our children. It is entirely right—and indeed it is a responsibility of Governments—to ensure that the police and other agencies have effective powers to tackle those threats, and to ensure that robust legal frameworks exist for the use of sometimes intrusive tactics.
	Undercover officers, sometimes working in difficult and dangerous conditions, have helped bring criminals to justice. They have stopped bad things happening to our country. None the less, the Ellison review reveals very real and substantial failings. The picture that emerges about the SDS from this report, and from other material in the public domain, is of significant failings of judgment and of intrusive supervision and leadership over a sustained period. Mark Ellison has performed a commendable public duty in revealing these issues. His report lays bare issues of great seriousness in relation not only to Peter Francis, but to the SDS more widely.
	When I asked Mark Ellison to consider the SDS within the scope of his review, I asked him to tell me in his report whether he felt that a public inquiry was needed to get to the full truth. Although Ellison does not go as far as recommending a public inquiry, he is clear that in respect of the SDS in general, and the Peter Francis allegations in particular, a public inquiry might be better placed to make definitive findings.
	I do not say this lightly, but the greatest possible scrutiny is now needed into what has taken place. Given the gravity of what has now been uncovered, I have decided that a public inquiry, led by a judge, is necessary to investigate undercover policing and the operation of the SDS. Only a public inquiry will be able to get to the full truth behind the matters of huge concern contained in Mark Ellison's report.
	The House will understand that an inquiry cannot be set up immediately. It must wait for the conclusion of the criminal investigation and Ellison’s further work to identify possible miscarriages of justice. It is right and proper that those legal processes are allowed to conclude first. Ellison himself identifies his further review as a priority before any public inquiry can take place. That further work will also inform the inquiry’s precise terms of reference.
	As I have said, the matters that I have announced today are deeply concerning. More broadly, it is imperative that public trust and confidence in the police is maintained. I do not believe corruption and misconduct to be endemic in the police, and it is clear that the majority of policemen and women conduct themselves honestly and with integrity.
	In February last year, I announced to the House specific measures to address corruption and misconduct, to ensure greater transparency, to provide clearer rules on conduct, and to improve standards of professional behaviour. That work is on track. The College of Policing, which has a clear remit of enhancing police integrity, is delivering a package of measures that includes a new code of ethics. The code sets out clearly the high standards of behaviour expected from police officers.
	In addition, the Independent Police Complaints Commission is being expanded and emboldened so that in future it will have responsibility for dealing with all serious and sensitive cases involving the police. I can tell the House that I am reflecting on whether further proposals are needed.
	I also want to ensure that those who want to report corruption and misconduct are encouraged to do so. I therefore want to strengthen protections for whistleblowers in the police and I will bring proposals to the House in due course.
	We must also ensure that police forces have all the capability they need to pursue corruption, so I have today asked the chief inspector of constabulary to look specifically at the anti-corruption capability of forces, including professional standards departments.
	Arrangements for undercover officer deployments are very different today from those in the early 1990s. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, all deployments must be authorised as both necessary and proportionate to the issue being investigated. This Government have introduced further safeguards. The independent Office of Surveillance Commissioners is now notified of all deployments and must approve those that last longer than 12 months. We have also increased the rank of the authorising officer so that all deployments must be authorised by an assistant chief constable, and those lasting longer than 12 months by a chief constable.
	There also needs to be a change in culture and we need to continue the work we have already done to reform the police. From this autumn, the police will for the first time have the opportunity to bring in talented and experienced leaders from other walks of life to senior ranks. The College of Policing will provide those individuals with world-class training. Those coming in will bring a fresh perspective and approach and will open up policing culture. I believe that that is one of the most important reforms in shaping the police of the future.
	I have committed to funding a cadre of new direct-entrant superintendents from this autumn until spring 2018, so I challenge all those forces that have not yet signed up to take that opportunity to do so. It is vital that the public know that policing is not a closed shop.
	We are changing the culture of the police through direct entry, the code of ethics, greater transparency and professionalisation, and we are transforming the investigation of cases involving the police through reform of the IPCC, but I would like to do more. The current law on police corruption relies on the outdated common-law offence of misconduct in public office. It is untenable that we should be relying on such a legal basis to deal with serious issues of corruption in modern policing, so I shall table amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill to introduce a new offence of police corruption, supplementing the existing offence of misconduct in public office and focusing clearly on those who hold police powers.
	In policing, as in other areas, the problems of the past have a danger of infecting the present and can lay traps for the future. Policing stands damaged today. Trust and confidence in the Metropolitan police and in policing more generally are vital and a public inquiry and the other work I have set out are part of the process of repairing the damage.
	Stephen Lawrence was murdered more than 20 years ago and it is deplorable that his family have had to wait so many years for the truth to emerge. Indeed, it is still
	emerging. Understandably, many of us thought that the Macpherson inquiry had answered all the questions surrounding the investigation into Stephen’s death, but the findings I have set out today are profoundly disturbing. For the sake of Doreen Lawrence, Neville Lawrence, their family and the British public we must act now to address these wrongs. I commend the statement to the House.

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the statement that the Home Secretary has made and the work of Mark Ellison in drawing up this extremely important but serious and disturbing review. The findings of the Ellison review are extremely troubling and the Home Secretary’s statement today is serious.
	Nearly 21 years ago, a young man of 18 was killed by racist murderers. Stephen Lawrence and his family were denied justice then and it is clear that they have been denied justice ever since. The findings of the Ellison review are all the more serious because, in the 21 years since, repeated attempts have been made to get to the truth and to deliver justice but, despite all those attempts, that still has not happened. We in this House should show our support today for the Lawrence family in their continued determination to get to the truth and to justice, but we also know that no family should have to keep fighting in this way for so many decades.
	Let me touch on some of the key findings that the Home Secretary has set out. First, she said that the Ellison review stated that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that one of the officers involved in the Lawrence investigation acted corruptly, but that has never been fully investigated. This is extremely serious and a full investigation is needed of the outstanding lines of inquiry identified by the Ellison review. I welcome the Home Secretary’s confirmation that this will now be looked at by the National Crime Agency, and also her confirmation that links with the Daniel Morgan inquiry will be pursued. Will she ensure—I am sure she will—that the House and the Lawrence family are kept updated with the timetable and course of this investigation?
	Secondly, the Ellison review found that the full information about corruption and internal corruption investigations was not given to the Macpherson inquiry, and also that the Macpherson inquiry may have come to different conclusions as a result. It found also that the Metropolitan Police Service’s record keeping was a “cause of real concern” and that key evidence was the subject of “mass shredding” in 2003. Will the Home Secretary ensure that the NCA looks at whether information was wilfully withheld from the Macpherson inquiry or whether it was wilfully destroyed, and also looks at the wider issue of record keeping within the Metropolitan police?
	The Home Secretary will be aware that we have asked before for an updated Macpherson-style review of progress since the original inquiry, because clearly a lot of changes were made as a result of the Macpherson inquiry. Does she not think this would be timely and that it would be an opportunity to look again at the conclusions of the review and whether they would have been different in the light of this further information?
	Thirdly, the review found that undercover operations were carried out against those around the Lawrence family, and that information from those operations was given to those within the Metropolitan police who were involved in the legal case brought by the Lawrence family. It states:
	“The reality was that N81 was, at the time, an MPS spy in the Lawrence family camp during the course of judicial proceedings in which the family was the primary party in opposition to the MPS.”
	The review also found that the SDS, as the Home Secretary mentioned, was inappropriately and unjustifiably reporting on Duwayne Brooks. These findings are deeply disturbing. The Ellison review describes these operations as completely improper and wholly inappropriate, but the whole House will be shocked and we should condemn it in the strongest terms.
	The Home Secretary is right: these revelations may mean that there have been miscarriages of justice. So I welcome her decision to instigate a public inquiry into the activities of the SDS. She will know that we have called for an inquiry into undercover policing, and it is right that there should be one. The Home Secretary is right to say that intelligence is a vital part of policing and the Ellison review says so, but it needs to be within a clear legal framework with proper safeguards in place. It is clear that that did not happen in these investigations and operations by the SDS against the Lawrence family and those linked to them at the time. We do not know how wide these miscarriages may go, but we cannot have a branch of policing that operated in this way, against the very ethos of policing and justice that it was charged with protecting and that the vast majority of police officers across the country have signed up to. Will the right hon. Lady discuss further not just with the family but with others on the Opposition Benches what form that public inquiry should take? We would welcome further discussions on that.
	I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision to keep pursuing the truth. The Macpherson review was set up to get to the truth in the first place. It is important, too, that we should also keep pursuing justice. Will she ensure that in pursuing all these lines of inquiry, consideration is given to any lines that could lead to prosecutions of the further suspects in Stephen Lawrence’s murder?
	Finally, I urge the Home Secretary to consider going further in the reforms that she talked about towards the end of her remarks. There is a serious question about whether the IPCC was able to investigate in the way that the Ellison review has done when it carried out an inquiry in 2006. The IPCC is the independent body charged with such investigations and should be able to get to the truth, but it was not able to do so. It is bad for justice and for policing not to have a credible body able to get to the truth the first time round.
	I agree with the Home Secretary about the importance of force-level professional standards. She will know that forces have raised concerns that resources are being transferred from force-level professional standards in corruption investigations to the IPCC. Clearly, both need to be able to do that important job.
	I also ask the Home Secretary to go further on the oversight of undercover policing. Clearly that will be considered in the public inquiry, but I urge her to look, in parallel, at further safeguards. As she will know, we
	have previously suggested additional safeguards, including on pre-authorisation for longer-term operations, because the current oversight regime has clearly not been effective enough in preventing some of the problems that have arisen.
	I also ask the Home Secretary to look at the implications for the Hillsborough inquiry. As she will know, when we had the discussion three weeks ago, we also raised concerns about whether there was inappropriate surveillance or intercept against the Hillsborough families. It is hugely important that we get to the full truth about that and that it comes out at the earliest possible opportunity.
	Twenty-one years later, no one should underestimate the gravity of the institutional failure two decades ago or the seriousness of the continued institutional failure to get to the truth. The Home Secretary has rightly said that we need to get to the truth. Police officers do a vital job, helping to keep the public safe every day. They need public trust and confidence, and we all need truth and justice. Three weeks ago she made the statement about the failure of the criminal justice system to get to the truth and to get justice for the families of Hillsborough victims decades ago, and today we have heard about that failure over the murder of Stephen Lawrence decades ago.
	Families should never have to wait decades to get to the truth. Everyone must recognise that, unless we get to the truth and get justice, these tragedies will continue to cast a long shadow over the vital work that our criminal justice system and the police need to do. We owe it to the families, but we also owe it to confidence in the justice system.

Theresa May: I entirely agree with the right hon. Lady’s comments on the significance of the review. Of course, as she said, it is not alone in identifying problems with how cases have been treated; the Daniel Morgan case and the results of the Hillsborough Independent Panel also revealed failings that had taken place. As she said, it is absolutely imperative, in order to ensure that there is trust and confidence in the police, which is vital for us all, that we deal with these failings appropriately and get to the truth.
	As the right hon. Lady and I have said, the results of the Ellison review are truly shocking. I suspect that it will take hon. Members some time to examine all the aspects that Mark Ellison has brought out, but the extent to which the report shows that a deep failure occurred at the time of the incidents and behaviours he examined is obvious from the remarks I have made today. It is therefore necessary that we follow that up by a number of different routes.
	With regard to the timetable for the further investigation I have referred to the director-general of the National Crime Agency, I will of course be happy to keep the House informed of the results and how it will be taken forward. I would expect the director-general to look at the various issues the right hon. Lady referred to when considering how the investigation should take place and what is necessary to ensure that prosecutions, if they are required, can take place.
	I do not think that it will be possible for us to discuss the form of the public inquiry properly until we have seen more of the next stage of Mark Ellison’s work, which is considering the wider issue and the question of miscarriages of justice. However, I will of course want
	to ensure that the public inquiry has the right terms of reference and that it is able to conduct the job that we want it to do and that the Lawrence family will obviously be concerned that it does. At the right time, I think that it will be appropriate to have discussions about the form of the public inquiry and its terms of reference.
	On the IPCC, as the right hon. Lady said and as I said, Mark Ellison finds that its inquiries and work were not adequate and that it did not find the corruption that is alleged to have taken place. I have already given the IPCC more resources, more power and more of a task. The right hon. Lady referred to transferring resources from professional standards departments. That is a reflection of the fact that we are transferring work to the IPCC. One concern that people have always had is about the police themselves investigating serious complaints against them. That is why we are transferring that responsibility to the IPCC and the resources to undertake it.
	On the safeguards on undercover policing, we have recently made changes to enhance them so that although longer-term deployments—anything over 12 months—must be authorised by a chief constable, undercover deployments can be authorised by an assistant chief constable. The independent Office of Surveillance Commissioners must be notified of all deployments, so the oversight framework is already stronger.
	The right hon. Lady rightly raised the concern of Hillsborough families that they may have been subject to inappropriate surveillance. I understand that a formal complaint has been made to the IPCC about that, and that it is considering how best to investigate the concerns that have been raised.
	There is much still to be done. Change has taken place over the years but sadly, what we have seen today is that it is necessary to continue the inquiries and investigations to ensure that, for the sake of the family particularly and for all of us and our trust in the police, we get to the truth.

Peter Bottomley: May I pay public tribute to the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) and John Walker for going to see the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), which led to the inquiry being set up, and to those who organised the meeting between the family and Nelson Mandela, which gave a profile and quiet dignity to reflect properly the way the family had reacted? I pay tribute to the family and those with them, including Baroness Howells, who managed to avoid any disturbance, and I add the name of John Philpott, the local Plumstead commander who, within 24 hours of the murderous attack on Stephen Lawrence and Duwayne Brooks, organised a community meeting at the town hall and said publicly that people knew that Stephen Lawrence was a good person, not a bad person? When the further inquiries take place, will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary ask that consideration be given to using Clive Driscoll, the police officer who helped to have one person convicted, as an adviser, if not a member, so that what the police have known for years can be added in?
	In both this case and another six years later in Brighton, when constituents of mine, Michael and Jay Abatan were attacked, the first failing was that the police did not arrest the people who were thought to be
	suspects and hold them separately, or have proper surveillance and gather the evidence that was available at the time. We are now sweeping up mistakes that were made later. I pay tribute to all the police who do their job properly and find the evidence straightaway so that justice can be pursued in court.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right that we should never forget that there are police officers out there who do their job perfectly properly with honesty and integrity, and are bringing criminals to justice as a result of their work. We should not forget to pay tribute—he is right to do so—to those who have campaigned for many years alongside the family and in the House to ensure that those who were responsible are brought to justice and that we can get at the truth.
	When the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) set up the Macpherson inquiry and when its results were received, everyone assumed that it had been able to look at all the evidence and to get to the truth. Sadly, as we now know, that was not the case, and certain matters that should have been referred to it were not.
	My hon. Friend refers to a particular officer and the need to ensure that in further investigations police experience and knowledge of the case is not lost. That matter has been drawn to my attention, and I am giving proper consideration to it.

Clive Efford: I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that there is to be an inquiry into the goings-on within the SDS. However, we should not be sidetracked from the core issue that initiated the Ellison investigation and review, which is that corruption was an influence over the investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence and that evidence and information were withheld from the Macpherson inquiry. I would like the Secretary of State to confirm that that will be addressed in part of the public inquiry where people have to come and give evidence under oath.
	In July 2006, there was a programme on TV called “The Boys Who Killed Stephen Lawrence”. Deputy Commissioner John Yates went on that programme and said that Detective Sergeant John Davidson was a corrupt officer. I contacted the IPCC and the Metropolitan police and asked to know in what way his activities affected the inquiry. In a meeting with the Metropolitan police, I was told categorically that his corruption had nothing whatsoever to do with the investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. We now know from the Ellison inquiry that the evidence on that was destroyed, so on what basis did the Metropolitan police tell me that? I also asked the IPCC to investigate what other crimes Detective Sergeant Davidson had been involved in that may have been corrupted by his illegal activities, and answer got I none.
	All this information needs to be investigated thoroughly in a full public inquiry. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that the public inquiry will not just focus on the SDS but take in those wider issues, because nothing short of that will be satisfactory to the public or the family of Stephen Lawrence?

Theresa May: I recognise the role that the hon. Gentleman has played in relation to this matter, the concern that he has expressed over the years, and the efforts that he has
	made, as he has just evidenced to us, to ensure that the truth will be found in relation to the murder of Stephen Lawrence.
	On the public inquiry, as I indicated earlier, we will be looking at the terms of reference once it is clearer that Mark Ellison has been able to do his work in relation to the question of the SDS in general and miscarriages of justice. It is specifically in respect of the SDS and the Peter Francis allegations that Mark Ellison identifies that a public inquiry might be better placed to make definitive findings, and that is the background against which we will look at the inquiry’s terms of reference. In relation to some of the other aspects that he investigated, he has not highlighted the potential for a public inquiry to find further evidence and get to the truth behind certain allegations. As I said, the inquiry will look at undercover policing and the SDS, in particular, but we will set the terms of reference in due course when Mark Ellison has had an opportunity to conduct the further review that has been proposed in his report and that I have accepted as a recommendation.

Alan Beith: I welcome the thoroughness of the Ellison inquiry and my right hon. Friend’s resolute response to it. Does she agree that undercover operations, although sometimes necessary, were wholly inappropriate and had no valid purpose when used against the Lawrence family and Duwayne Brooks, and that that underlines the need not only for effective accountability for such operations but an ethical framework within which they are conducted? Will she say any more about how she hopes to protect whistleblowers, whose lives and careers are often shattered when they serve the public and the vast majority of honest police officers by bringing corruption to public notice?

Theresa May: I thank my right hon. Friend. In fact, “wholly inappropriate” is precisely the wording that Mark Ellison uses in relation to the use of an undercover officer during the Macpherson inquiry. I think that many people will be absolutely shocked by the fact that there was an individual who was, in Mark Ellison’s words—I used the quote as did the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—
	“an MPS spy in the Lawrence family camp”
	at a time when the family were in opposition to the MPS in judicial proceedings. I am sure that everybody recognises that that was wholly inappropriate and that this is not the behaviour that we expect from the police.
	On the question on whistleblowing, my right hon. Friend makes a very valid and important point. It is crucial. The issue of whistleblowing in various aspects of the public sector has been raised in recent times. It is very important that police officers feel that they are able to raise matters of concern and that those matters of concern will be properly considered and properly dealt with. I have not quite finalised my proposals in this area, so I ask my right hon. Friend to have some patience. I will inform the House in due course of how we intend to improve the ability of police officers to be whistleblowers and to feel that they are able to do that and what they feel is absolutely right and of benefit to the vast majority of offers, who operate with integrity.

Jack Straw: May I first welcome the resolute determination the Home Secretary has shown in pursuing this issue and thank her for establishing
	the Ellison inquiry and for making this statement, which I have to say is one of the most shocking and serious statements I have heard by any Minister from any party over the whole of the 35 years I have been in this House?
	As the Home Secretary and the police authority for London who established the Macpherson inquiry, I was struck, in the three months it took me to establish that inquiry and agree its terms of reference, by the reluctance of the Metropolitan Police Service to have any inquiry that focused forensically on the facts, as it had successfully resisted such calls for four years. I attributed that defensiveness to a bureaucratic unwillingness to accept scrutiny, but it is now clear that there was venality, probably at the highest level of the Metropolitan police, by which, against all rules, they refused to offer evidence, as they were required to do, to the full judicial inquiry of Sir William Macpherson. I have to say, given what the Home Secretary has now said, that had that evidence been offered, I think it is at least possible that Sir William Macpherson and his colleagues would have concluded not only, as they did, that there had been institutional racism, but that there had been institutional corruption as well.
	I had a personal interest in the issue of the SDS and that organisation’s activities to go after subversives, because in 1974 the Security Service informed me of, and showed me, records that had been kept on my family and me from 1960 until 1971, when I finished as a student activist. When I went to the Home Office, I said that I did not want to see my file, but that I did want to know whether they were carrying on wasting money looking at subversives like myself, my family and successors. I was assured that that kind of activity was not going on, so I hope very much that this inquiry will get to the bottom of it.
	May I also say—this is my last point—that I am very pleased that the permanent secretary is going to scrutinise what happened under the previous Government? I will give every possible co-operation to that inquiry, because, to my certain knowledge, I knew nothing whatever of these continuing activities, and had I done so, I would have stopped them immediately.

Theresa May: On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, one of the things that comes through clearly in the Ellison review is that part of the ethos of the SDS was precisely that of secrecy, to the extent that very few people—this is one of the difficulties in establishing exactly who knew—within the Metropolitan police, let alone outside it, knew. This was kept very tight and close in terms of those who were even aware that the SDS was in existence, let alone of what it was doing.
	The right hon. Gentleman referred to the specific issue of corruption. Everybody will be appalled that there was an allegation of corruption by an individual police officer that was brought to the attention of superior officers in the Metropolitan police, yet it was not referred to the Macpherson inquiry.
	One has to ask what the thinking was of somebody who thought that it was right not to refer the allegation to the Macpherson inquiry. I find it absolutely incredible that that further reference did not take place. As Mark Ellison says, it was a significant failure by the Metropolitan police.
	I just want to comment on the issue of culture, which is part of this matter, and also goes back to the question about whistleblowing asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). The culture of looking inward and protecting each other was rife at the time. One of the issues that can be looked at in the public inquiry is the whole question of Peter Francis’s allegations against that background and against what was actually going on in the SDS at the time.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I just say to the House that we have so far had four questions in 14 minutes? We have had questions from Members with very close personal experience of these matters either as constituency representatives or holders of ministerial office. I think that the House will agree that I have therefore very properly allowed latitude, because these matters need to be treated seriously, but we have a lot of other very pressing business. I am afraid that I must now insist on short questions and short answers so that we can proceed expeditiously. I know that I will be helped supremely in this matter by Nicola Blackwood.

Nicola Blackwood: The findings could not be more serious, and they cannot help but undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system. This is far from the first time that the competency of the Independent Police Complaints Commission has been put in question. I welcome the steps that have been taken to strengthen the IPCC and the oversight of undercover operations, but I urge the Home Secretary to go further with the reforms so that the public can have confidence in the oversight mechanisms, and so that those mechanisms are sufficiently robust and sufficiently funded to root out police failings wherever they may be found, not just to put right past wrongs, but to prevent future wrongs.

Theresa May: As I have said, I am considering whether any further steps are necessary in relation to the IPCC. The step I am taking, which goes to the heart of what my hon. Friend says, is asking Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to look at the current capability of police forces to identify and deal with corruption inside their forces. Today, we are talking about events that took place in the past, but people need to know that they can have every confidence that the police will identify and root out corruption in the future.

David Winnick: Since the brutal murder of Stephen Lawrence in April 1993—as we know, he was murdered for only one reason: the colour of his skin; that is why he was put to death—is not the very strong and justified impression that much more time was spent investigating the Lawrence family and Mr Brooks than in bringing those responsible to justice? May I simply say that a society based on the rule of law should feel thoroughly ashamed of what has been revealed in the Ellison review and of what the Home Secretary has said today? A thorough investigation into undercover policing is absolutely essential, and I welcome the public inquiry.

Theresa May: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the public inquiry, and I note his other comments. It is of course the case that the initial investigation into Stephen Lawrence’s murder was deeply flawed. As we know, it is only recently that the family has seen any level of justice in relation to the murder of Stephen Lawrence. It is imperative that the investigations continue, and that as we bring forward various other measures, we make sure and keep our focus on ensuring that we get to the truth about the murder of Stephen Lawrence and, obviously, the behaviour of officers in the Metropolitan police and the way in which the investigation and other matters were conducted.

John Howell: The allegations are extremely serious, indeed. Notwithstanding what the Home Secretary has said about the general nature of policing, they show that there is a great need to change the culture of policing in this country. She has put a lot of faith in bringing in outside talent, but does she really think that that is enough?

Theresa May: Bringing in outside talent is a very important part of this process. It will bring different cultures, attitudes and experiences into the police, which will be a significant part of changing the culture. I also think that other steps we are taking—such as the code of ethics by the College of Policing, and the transfer of investigations of serious complaints against the police to the IPCC so that the police do not investigate themselves—are all part of the picture. I believe that opening up senior ranks to people from outside is an important part of bringing in a more diverse culture, experience and approach, which can only be of benefit.

Heidi Alexander: May I thank the Home Secretary both for the content of her statement and for the tone of what she has said? She mentioned the fact that allegations were made to officers in the Metropolitan police about corruption during the initial investigation. Will she confirm that none of the officers to whom those allegations were made is still employed by the Metropolitan police?

Theresa May: If the hon. Lady will permit me, I will write to her on that matter so that I am absolutely certain of the facts I give her.

Michael Ellis: The review discloses breathtaking and monumental corruption, and it will take a monumental effort to begin to repair the damage that has been caused. Among other things, the report discloses that officers in criminal trials failed to reveal their true identities, and that they failed to correct evidence that they knew to be wrong. As a result, there will doubtless have been miscarriages of justice in other cases, which it will be extremely complicated and difficult to root out, but does the Home Secretary agree that that must happen? Does she also agree that the culture of policing needs to change considerably not just in relation to this matter, but generally? Will she look at the report of the Home Affairs Committee inquiry into undercover policing, which has already taken place? Finally, may I suggest that what she said about adding an offence of police corruption is extremely important, because the current offence of misconduct in a public office is clearly insufficient?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the new offence, which I, too, think is important. He is absolutely right on the issue of miscarriages of justice: it is imperative to look into it, and I am grateful to Mark Ellison for undertaking that work. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has made it clear that every effort will be made to ensure that this work can be completed properly and fully. We obviously do not yet know quite what the extent of that work will be, but with his experience of the work that he has already done, Mark Ellison is absolutely the right person to take it forward. As I have said, he will work with the CPS and report to the Attorney-General. If necessary, cases will of course be put to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Penny Mordaunt: Does the Home Secretary recall that when she began her programme of comprehensive police reform—it was then led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who was in the Chamber for her statement—many people questioned the need for it? I do not think that anyone will say that today, but does she agree that we owe it to the vast majority of police officers who carry out their duties with honesty and integrity to state that we know that police corruption is limited to a few immoral individuals?

Theresa May: I pay tribute to the work on police reform done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), and which is being continued by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims. I hope that everybody sees that it was important to embark on police reform and, as I have said, we are obviously taking forward further measures, which is important not just for public confidence in the police, but because, as my hon. Friend says, we owe it to the majority of police officers who work with honesty and integrity—day in, day out—to prevent crime, catch criminals and keep us safe.

Bob Blackman: My constituency has a majority BME—black and minority ethnic—population. Policing is by consent, and it is obviously crucial that the whole community has confidence in the chain of command, the policies enacted and operational decisions made on the ground. With that in mind, does my right hon. Friend agree with me about the misuse
	and abuse of stop-and-search powers, which are often targeted at a particular section of the community and seem to be unfairly used?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right that certain communities are subject to stop and search disproportionately. The Government, the Prime Minister and I are clear that we need changes to stop and search to ensure that people have confidence in it. It is an important tool, but people must have confidence in its use.

Bob Stewart: I was an undercover military officer in 1978. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is absolutely right and proper that undercover operations are continued by the police, and that the men and women who are involved in those operations, who act with integrity and sometimes with great courage, should be applauded?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Undercover policing is an important tool. It is important that the police can use it. Many undercover police officers act very bravely and put themselves at great risk in the work that they do. Such work is important in catching criminals and in protecting the public. We need to ensure that all undercover officers operate with full honesty and integrity, and that there is a clear and appropriate legal and supervisory framework so that the boundaries of that activity are known. Sadly, it is clear from the Ellison review that, in relation to the SDS, there were rather fewer boundaries in that activity than there should have been.

Neil Parish: I commend the Home Secretary for her work to root out corruption in the police. Does she agree that we must not only restore public confidence in the police force, but boost the morale of the very good officers who make up the vast majority of the police and ensure that they are seen to be doing a good job?

Theresa May: Absolutely. I hope that the majority of police officers, who operate with honesty and integrity day by day, will welcome our commitment to rooting out any corruption or misbehaviour within the police. We owe it to them to ensure that they see that happening and know that we value the work that they do. We want to ensure that all officers operate with honesty and integrity.

Nuclear Submarines

Philip Hammond: Before I make my statement, I am sure that the House will want to join me in sending condolences to the family and friends of the sapper from 32 Engineer Regiment who sadly died while on duty in Helmand province yesterday as a result of non-battle related injuries sustained in Camp Bastion. The incident is not believed to have involved any enemy action. The serviceman’s next of kin have been informed and have requested the customary 24-hour delay before further details are released.
	With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I have decided to refuel the nuclear reactor in HMS Vanguard, one of the UK’s four ballistic missile submarines, during its planned deep maintenance period, which begins in 2015. It will be the second time that Vanguard’s reactor has been refuelled since it entered service in 1993. I will explain to the House now why I have reached the decision to conduct a second refuelling.
	As many hon. Members will know, alongside the operational reactors on board our ballistic missile submarines, a prototype reactor of the same class has been running at the naval reactor test establishment at Dounreay in Scotland since 2002. Its purpose is to help us assess how the reactor cores within our submarines will perform over time. It has therefore been run for significantly longer periods and at a significantly higher intensity than the cores of the same type in our submarines, to allow us to identify early any age or use-related issues that may arise later in the lives of the operational reactor cores.
	In January 2012, low levels of radioactivity were detected in the cooling water surrounding the prototype core. Low levels of radioactivity are a normal product of the nuclear reaction that takes place within the fuel, but they would not normally enter the cooling water. The water is contained within the sealed reactor circuit, and I can reassure the House that there has been no detectable radiation leak from that sealed circuit. The independent Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency have been kept informed.
	When the coolant radioactivity was first detected, the reactor was shut down as a precaution. Following investigations and a series of trials, and with the agreement of the relevant regulator, the reactor was restarted in November 2012. It continues to operate safely. Both radiation exposure for workers at the site and discharges from the site have remained well inside the strictly prescribed limits set by the regulators. Indeed, against the International Atomic Energy Agency’s measurement scale for nuclear-related events, this issue is classed as level , which is described by the agency as
	“below scale—no safety significance”.
	The naval reactor test establishment is, and remains, a very safe and low-risk site. However, the fact that low levels of radioactivity have been detected in the coolant water clearly means that the reactor is not operating exactly as planned. As one would expect, we have conducted extensive investigations to determine how the radioactivity has entered the cooling water. We believe that it is due to a microscopic breach in a small
	area of the metal cladding that surrounds one fuel element within the core of the reactor. It is not yet clear why that breach has occurred. It might be related to the age of the reactor, it might be a function of the high intensity use to which we have subjected the test reactor or it might be a random event. We do not yet know.
	On current plans, the Dounreay test reactor will start to be decommissioned in 2015. We are confident that the reactor can be operated safely until that date. We may decide to bring forward decommissioning if it will allow us better to understand the causes of the breach through examination of the reactor core.
	This occurrence does not present any safety risk. It does, however, potentially present additional risks to future submarine availability. Consequently, I have had to consider carefully the implications for the Vanguard-class and Astute-class submarines, which use the same design of reactor core. We constantly monitor our submarine reactors. We have never detected a similar occurrence to that found in the prototype reactor. We are confident that if one did occur, we would detect it straight away.
	Despite that, we now have to consider the possibility, however remote, that the useful operating life of this particular design of core may not be as long as previously expected. As a result, I have decided that, as a precautionary measure, we should refuel HMS Vanguard, the oldest SSBN and the one with the highest mileage, as it were, on her reactor, when she enters her scheduled deep maintenance period in 2015. This is the responsible option: replacing the core on a precautionary basis at the next arising opportunity, rather than waiting to see if the core needs to be replaced at a later date, which would mean returning Vanguard for a period of unscheduled deep maintenance, potentially putting at risk the resilience of our ballistic missile submarine operations.
	The refuelling will increase our confidence that Vanguard will be able to operate effectively and safely until the planned fleet of Successor submarines begins to be delivered from 2028. The refuelling will be conducted within the current planned dry dock maintenance period for Vanguard, which starts in late 2015 and will last for about three and a half years. It is therefore expected to have no impact on deterrent operations. The additional cost of refuelling Vanguard is estimated to be about £120 million over the next six years.
	A decision on whether to refuel the next oldest submarine, HMS Victorious, when she enters her next planned deep maintenance period does not need to be made until 2018. It will be informed by further analysis of the data from the reactor at Dounreay and examination of the core after the reactor is decommissioned. I have decided, again on a precautionary basis, that in the meantime we will take the necessary steps to keep open the option of refuelling Victorious. That will involve investment at Devonport and at the reactor plant at Raynesway in Derby to preserve our ability to conduct nuclear refuelling. The total cost of that investment is still being scoped, but it is expected to be of the order of £150 million.
	Those costs—perhaps £270 million in total—will be met from existing provision for financial risk in the submarine programme budget. They represent substantially less than 10% of that risk provision and will not impact on the more than £4 billion of contingency that we are holding in the overall defence equipment plan.
	The implications for the Astute-class submarines will be the subject of further analysis, particularly once we have had the opportunity to examine the core from Dounreay. As the Astutes are only now entering service, and thus their cores have seen far less operation, a decision on whether to refuel any of them will not be needed for many years to come. These decisions do not affect our plans for the Successor submarine that will replace the Vanguard class. Refuelling HMS Vanguard does not enable us to further extend the overall life of the submarine, which is limited by a number of factors other than the age of the reactor. Neither do these decisions have any implications for our confidence in the reactor we are developing for the Successor submarine, which is based on a completely different design.
	Finally, the House will understand that our naval reactor cores are a highly specialised, UK-bespoke maritime design, and there is no read across from this occurrence to the performance of naval reactors operated by other countries, or indeed reactors operating in the UK civil nuclear sector. The safety of the UK’s naval nuclear reactor at the test establishment at Dounreay, and on our submarines, is of critical importance to us, as is the maintenance of continuous at-sea deterrence. That is why I have taken the decision to apply the precautionary principle, even though there is no evidence at this stage that the problem detected with the test reactor is likely to present in the operational reactors. We will continue to work with independent military and civil regulators to ensure the continuing safety of nuclear operations at Dounreay, Devonport, Faslane and at sea.
	The Government are committed to maintaining our nuclear deterrent as the ultimate guarantee of the UK’s sovereignty and freedom of action against threats of nuclear aggression, wherever they may come from. Our submarine-based continuous at-sea deterrent remains the most capable and cost-effective way of doing that. The decisions I have announced today are responsible and precautionary, and will assure our ability safely to maintain the UK’s nuclear deterrent into the future. I commend this statement to the House.

Vernon Coaker: I join the Defence Secretary in paying tribute to the soldier from the 32 Engineer Regiment. His death is a reminder of the service and sacrifice given to our country by the armed forces, and our thoughts are with his family and loved ones at this time. I thank the Secretary of State for briefing me on this statement last night, and for sight of it. These are complicated and sensitive matters, and it is in all our interests that they are debated in a calm and reasonable manner that befits the seriousness of the issue.
	I will come to the specific issues raised about the reactor in Dounreay and the nuclear submarines, but I start by asking the Secretary of State why he is making this statement now, and why the House is being told about this matter only today. He says that this issue was discovered in January 2012, which is more than two years ago. Does he not think it would have been right to brief the official Opposition spokesperson on defence then? Why did that not happen, and why has it not happened at any time since then until now? Should Parliament have known earlier?
	There must be public confidence in the Government to be open and transparent about such matters. A fault, however small, that develops in a nuclear reactor is something that the British people, and this Parliament, should have been told about. This is an issue of national security and national importance, and it will cause particular concern in Scotland. When did the Scottish Secretary know? Did the Defence Secretary or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland discuss the issue with the First Minister of Scotland and the Scottish Government? It seems to me that it was incumbent on the UK Government to inform and work with the Scottish Government on this matter. I accept that the Secretary of State briefed me and other colleagues last night and this morning, and I appreciate his candour, but does he agree that it has come rather late?
	Let me turn to the specific issues with the PWR2 nuclear reactor at Dounreay and the implications for the Royal Navy’s fleet submarines and ballistic missile submarines. There will inevitably be concern when the words “nuclear”, “reactor” and “fault” are used in the same sentence. Can the Secretary of State provide further assurance that there has been, and there is now, absolutely no risk to workers on site, personnel in service, or the wider public? Having discovered that there was a problem at the Vulcan naval reactor test establishment, on what basis was the decision made to continue running the reactor? We know it is now in maintenance. Will he tell the House when a decision will be made about whether to continue running the reactor? I understand that if a decision is made to stop running it, it takes three years from the point at which it shuts down to the point at which it has cooled enough to be examined. That is a long time. Has he examined the potential to look at the PWR2 currently being constructed for the later Astute-class boats, and does that provide an opportunity effectively to X-ray every aspect of the cladding to see if we can detect any faults? There will be concerns about the impact that might have on the Astute-class submarines. Will the Secretary of State outline what those are?
	The decision to maintain a test reactor so that faults could be identified has proven a good one. A fault has been found, however small, in PWR2—the test reactor in Dounreay. What plans are there to ensure that we have the same security with PWR3, which will be used on the Successor-class submarines? Have there been discussions with our US counterparts to see what lessons or expertise can be borrowed? In the current international defence and security climate, many people will be asking an important question: will this affect the UK’s ability to maintain continuous at-sea deterrence? Will it be necessary to adjust the operations timetable of the continuous at-sea deterrent? Finally, can the Defence Secretary confirm the total cost envisaged and that it will have no impact on the rest of the defence programme? If the cost is met by the submarine contingency fund, will that have any impact on the existing submarine programme?
	Given that there will be concern about the length of time it has taken to inform the House and the public about this issue, will the Secretary of State tell the House what plans he has to keep Parliament and the country involved and updated throughout this process? Does he agree that public confidence and trust on these issues is crucial, and that people should have been told earlier? There will rightly be anxiety about these matters.
	The British public must be assured that everything is being done to resolve them, and they must be confident that Britain’s defence and security is paramount and will be maintained. That is best done through openness and transparency.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and by and large we agree on the importance of these matters, but I am afraid I must start by saying that I am not particularly minded to take lectures on transparency from someone who was a member of the previous Government. The decisions we have made throughout this process from January 2012 have been carefully balanced. I have, of course, considered throughout whether it would be appropriate, sensible or helpful to make a public statement, and I remind him that the advice we have received throughout from the regulators and experts is that no safety issues are arising, and that this incident scores as a level 0 event on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s scale—an event that requires no action and presents no risk.
	We have kept the independent military nuclear safety regulator and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency informed of matters, as is proper, and I have no doubt that there will be people who say that the Scottish Government should have been informed. We will see when we hear from the representative of the Scottish National party in a moment whether it will approach this matter from a responsible and sensible point of view. Key Ministers within the Government were, of course, aware of these issues throughout.
	The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) asked why we decided to restart the reactor. Once it was clear that there was no safety risk and that a safety case for restarting it had been built and approved by the regulators, we continued with the operation of the test reactor to fulfil its intended purpose: to have delivered the same amount of core burn, and some more, as the most aged operational reactor will have achieved by the end of its service life.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the reactors being built for the Astute submarines, which are also core H reactors. I confirm that after this issue arose, all reactors in-build were re-examined with the best equipment available, to look for signs of anything that might give any further clue as to what has happened with the core H reactor at Dounreay.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the decision not to have a test reactor for the successor series—the PWR3 reactor. There are several technical reasons for this. The reactor is being built to an entirely different design specification. Because of the way in which technology has evolved, the engineering tolerances will be much less challenging in the PWR3 reactor and we have access to far more advanced computer modelling techniques, which can provide an adequate substitute for prototyping. However, in view of the concerns that have been expressed about this decision, I have asked the chief scientific adviser to review again the evidence on which the decision not to operate a test reactor was based, and to report back to me on the appropriateness of that decision. I will inform the House in due course of the result of that review.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether CASD is affected. It will not be, and that is the point of taking this decision today. Refuelling Vanguard during an existing planned deep-maintenance period means that the operational rotation of the Vanguard-class submarines will not be affected. That is the reason we have taken that decision. It is not a safety-related decision; it is a submarine availability-related decision.
	On the question of cost and as I have said already, we expect the total cost of the measures I have announced today to be about £270 million, all of which will come from contingency provision within the submarine programme that is currently unused. We do not expect it to have any impact on the wider defence programme. The contingency within the submarine programme is more than adequate—this amount is substantially less than 10% of the total contingency in the programme.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether I intended to make further statements. Clearly, I will of course notify the House if anything of significance happens; if we make a decision to decommission the reactor at Dounreay early; or if there are any further significant developments in respect of the reactor while it is running. I stress that we have reacted properly throughout, in consultation with the regulatory authorities, and we have dealt with this matter in the same way that any minor incident in a reactor, whether military or civil, would routinely be dealt with.

James Arbuthnot: My right hon. Friend said that the consequences of this announcement for the Astute fleet would be the subject of further review. We all understand that the levels of radioactivity that he has announced are low, but what monitoring will be done of the cooling system in our operational Astutes to reassure the crews and all those involved that they are not in any way at risk?

Philip Hammond: We carry out daily sampling and analysis of the coolant water in all our nuclear submarines.

Bob Ainsworth: Can I say to the Secretary of State that the fact that some people may react in an irresponsible way is a reason to be more open on this issue, not a reason to be less open—as he appeared to suggest in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker)?
	I am grateful for the briefings that the Secretary of State has given me and others. It will take three years from the decommissioning of the test reactor to be able to examine fully that hot piece of apparatus. In the meantime, we will continue to build the same reactors for the Astute class of submarine. Is he satisfied that we will do everything we can in that interim period to make certain that we minimise any risk and that we do not elongate or widen the safety margins on the reactor during the manufacturing process or otherwise?

Philip Hammond: Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman might anticipate, those are questions that I have already asked of the programme managers throughout this process. There are technical factors in the design of the core that limit the scope to change aspects of the design, but now that we are aware that this microscopic breach has occurred in the test reactor, it will focus the examination of the as yet uninstalled cores that are being built for the Astute class of submarine.
	The test reactor at Dounreay has been hammered. This is the nuclear equivalent of putting an engine on a test bed and running it flat out at maximum revs to see what happens. It does not mean that what happens to that engine will happen in a car that is being driven normally on the roads.
	It will take approximately three years from the time of decommissioning the reactor to being able to examine it fully. We now have to make a decision about whether more will be learned by continuing to run the reactor at Dounreay until its intended decommissioning date in 2015 or by decommissioning it a year and a half early and thus being able to examine the core a year and a half earlier than we otherwise would. The balance needs to be struck on that and I will act on the best scientific advice that I receive.

Liam Fox: I commend my right hon. Friend on his decision. What we are seeing is a vindication of the safety models that have been followed by successive Governments in relation to our nuclear submarine programme, and there is certainly no excuse for scaremongering or irresponsible language. In fact, we should be proud and reassured that safety is given such a high priority even at the financial cost that he has outlined.
	In order to give the House an understanding of the scale of the problem, will my right hon. Friend give us an indication of the percentage core burn of the Vulcan test reactor, and how that percentage compares with the percentage burn on the Vanguard submarine?

Philip Hammond: As my right hon. Friend says, Governments of both persuasions over the years have adopted a prudent and precautionary approach to the safety of our nuclear submarine fleet, and have invested money, where it is necessary to do so, on the basis that safety always takes priority. As I have said, the decisions that I am announcing today are not driven by concerns about safety. There is no safety risk identified from this incident. They are driven primarily by concerns about future submarine availability.
	The information on core burn is classified, but I can reassure the House that the percentage of core burn on the reactor at Dounreay exceeds by far the percentage of core burn on any of our operational reactors.

John Woodcock: Continuous at-sea deterrence is of course the foundation of our deterrent policy. As the Secretary of State knows much better than I do, it requires not only the Vanguard-class submarines to be continuously at sea, but the Trafalgar and the Astute classes to be around. The worst-case scenario would be the refuelling of all Vanguard and Astute submarines. Does he have complete confidence that CASD would be maintained if that were to happen, and what additional capacity would be needed to carry out such an extensive venture?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman asks sensible questions, but he is verging into speculative matters at this stage. This is a very tiny flaw in a reactor that has been hammered at maximum output over a long time. It is premature to suggest that when we examine the core we will find some systemic need to refuel all other reactors of a similar type. That is not the expectation.
	However, as he would expect, we will plan for every contingency, and the measures that I have announced will allow us to preserve the option of refuelling further Vanguard and Astute submarines should that be deemed expedient in the future.

Nick Harvey: I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement and commend him on his actions. He has acted, rightly, on the precautionary principle—and, God willing, he is acting more cautiously than is necessary. The UK has the highest nuclear standards, but one can never be too cautious on nuclear safety. If the decision has been taken to refuel Vanguard, which had not been anticipated or expected, and possibly others, what implications will that have, not for the operation of Astute but for the timeline of its production at Barrow?

Philip Hammond: That is, again, a good question. I am assured that the investment I have announced today to expand capacity at Raynesway, coupled with the buffer already in the supply line—reactors for future Astute class submarines are built ahead of the need to install them in the submarines—means that we can take a core, which was built with the intention of being installed in Astute, to refuel Vanguard. We will have been able to catch up on the production of cores before we get to a point where there would be any impact on the Astute programme. End result: there will be no impact on the timeline of Astute.

Angus MacNeil: The Secretary of State should acknowledge that Scottish MPs and Scotland’s Parliament have voted against nuclear weapons and that there is opposition from the Churches, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and voluntary organisations. He has said that he will plan for every contingency. How will Scottish independence alter his plans, when weapons of mass destruction are removed from Scotland’s environment, and when did he consult Scotland’s Government?

Philip Hammond: This is from the man whose defence policy is based on being able to join NATO, an avowedly nuclear alliance. As I have said many times in the House, we do not expect the Scottish people to vote for independence and we are not planning for that contingency. However, as one would expect, the Royal Navy operates an extensive set of contingency plans for dealing with all sorts of contingent events that may occur.

Julian Brazier: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the whole of the deterrent programme, both maintenance and build, is characterised by monopolies that are pretty much unavoidable. Does he agree that, notwithstanding this actually quite small hiccup, this arrangement, under Governments of all kinds, works well and offers lessons for wider consideration across procurement?

Philip Hammond: Our track record speaks for itself. Since 1963, the Royal Navy has operated 80-odd cores, both at sea and at shore-based test reactors. Rolls-Royce has acted as the technical authority and delivery partner, providing the design and manufacture of cores in an arrangement that has been very satisfactory. Nothing that I am announcing should in any way be taken to
	undermine the success of that relationship, or Rolls-Royce’s status as a world-leading provider of military reactor cores.

Andrew Miller: Having worked with radiation for a number of years in my own career and having followed very closely the development of the civil nuclear programme, I fully concur with the Secretary of State’s comments on the underlying science. On level 0 events, similar events, such as moving waste material out of civilian sites, are subject to local communication. Why was there not a parallel situation in the case of Dounreay? Why were local stakeholders not involved? Will he ensure that the chief scientific adviser is given the maximum freedom, within the limits of classified information, to share scientific findings with the broadest possible group of nuclear experts?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that within the circle of nuclear experts—it is quite a small circle—there has already been discussion on these issues in the past two years. There is no requirement to notify level 0 events, but we did notify the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and, of course, the military nuclear regulator. It is important to note that SEPA’s primary focus is on emissions from the site—that is, what is in the discharge from the site—and there has been no measurable change in the radiation discharge. That is the important point for people living in those communities.[Official Report, 11 March 2014, Vol. 577, c. 3MC.]

Tobias Ellwood: If the defect seen on the Vulcan test reactor at Dounreay were to be identified in one of the Astute or Vanguard-class submarines, what would the consequences be, from a safety perspective, for the crew on board those vessels? How would the removal of one or more submarine affect operational maritime capabilities?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend asks a good question. I emphasise again that there are no safety implications from this type of event—a submarine could continue to operate safely. This is a tiny amount of radiation in a coolant that is itself circulating in a closed system inside the sealed reactor shield, so there is no risk to the submarine crew. If such an event occurred, it would be detected almost immediately because of the daily sampling and analysis of coolant water. We are already looking at the operational implications, in a reactor of this type, of a very minor breach. As I have already told the House, the test reactor at Dounreay was restarted in 2012 and has subsequently run without any further problems. It is not absolutely clear that the result of such a minor event occurring in an operational reactor would necessarily mean that the reactor would have to be withdrawn from service. Clearly, we would do so on a precautionary basis while we considered a longer term course of action, but it is not yet clear that that would have to be the long-term state of affairs.

Tom Greatrex: The Secretary of State has said a number of times that SEPA was kept informed. Will he inform the House at what stage it was first informed? Given that SEPA is an Executive agency of the devolved Scottish
	Government, were Scottish Ministers informed by SEPA and, if that was the case, why were Scottish Ministers informed but Members of this House not?

Philip Hammond: SEPA was informed in October 2012 and has been involved in the discussions since that point. SEPA is an Executive agency of the Scottish Government, but it deals with operators in relation to the discharge of its regulatory functions on a properly regulated statutory basis and, usually, on a confidential basis. Clearly, SEPA did not feel that this event, as a level 0 event, needed to be brought to the attention of Ministers or anyone in the central Scottish Government.

Oliver Colvile: I thank my right hon. Friend for confirming that no lives were ever endangered by this activity. What discussions has he had with Babcock to ensure that it has the skilled work force in place and is able to deliver the work? It is important to ensure that that happens.

Philip Hammond: Obviously, the implications for Devonport are that a line of work, which was expected to end with the completion of the current refuelling of Vengeance, will now continue at least until 2019, with the refuelling of HMS Vanguard. At this stage, we have not quantified the precise impact on jobs and other activities at Devonport, but it is likely to be modest. Most of the people employed on the refuelling programme were expected to be absorbed elsewhere in the dockyard work force. We are confident that, with the announcements I have made today, there will be the capacity to carry out the Vanguard refuelling and to retain the ability to carry out the Victorious refuelling if necessary.

John Robertson: The stupidity of both the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government knows no bounds. It is clear from the fact that the Scottish Government have known about this for nearly two years and the United Kingdom Government have known about it for more than two years that they hold the people of this country in contempt. I live very close to Faslane, and it worries me that something could happen that the people of my country and my city know nothing about. The Secretary of State must go and tell people about it, otherwise no one will believe anything he says in future about anything to do with nuclear power.

Philip Hammond: I am not sure about taking any lessons on stupidity. I am afraid that this is scaremongering of the worst kind. I have told the hon. Gentleman and the House that no safety issues are at stake, and all the scientific evidence supports the position that I have taken. Level 0 events are not routinely made public; they are not routinely reported. That has been the practice of successive Governments, and it is the practice throughout the civil and military nuclear sector.

Bob Stewart: The refit for HMS Vanguard will take three and a half years, and that was planned. Does not that fact, and the requirement for us to have a permanent at-sea deterrent, support the plans for a fleet of four Successor SSBNs?

Philip Hammond: Indeed they do. If we are to maintain our posture of continuous at-sea deterrence, we will need to begin replacing the current fleet in the late 2020s. That is not primarily to do with the lives of the
	reactors or the cores; it is to do with the life expectancy of other components of the submarines that cannot effectively be replaced. The final decision to replace the Vanguard-class submarines with Successors will be made in 2016.

Point of Order

Diana Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This morning the Government published a report on the impact of migrants on British jobs on the Home Office website. Its publication had been delayed for some time, and it was then published at a time when the House was considering the very serious issue of the Ellison review. I think that the House should have been afforded an opportunity to consider the report on immigration, and I seek your guidance on how that could be best achieved.

Lindsay Hoyle: That is a matter for the Government rather than the Chair. We have had two statements today. However, the hon. Lady has put her point on the record, and I am sure that people will respond to it accordingly.

Future Army 2020

Lindsay Hoyle: Before I call the Chair of the Defence Committee, it may be helpful to the House if I explain again, briefly, the new procedure to which it agreed last year. Essentially, the pattern is the same as for a ministerial statement. The right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) will speak for up to 10 minutes—obviously he is not obliged to take all that time, unless he considers it necessary—after which I will call Members who rise to put questions to the right hon. Gentleman, and will call him to respond to them in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Their interventions should be questions, and should be brief. Front Benchers may take part if they feel so inclined.

James Arbuthnot: (Select Committee Statement) There is little time available to us, so I shall cut my remarks to the bone in order to allow other Members to ask questions about the Defence Committee’s report, “Future Army 2020”—a report which speaks for itself.
	We welcome many aspects of the changes that are being introduced by the Ministry of Defence. We welcome the increased spending on the reserves, the fact that reservists will have more training days, and the fact that they will work more closely with the regulars. We welcome the Government’s commitment to report annually on the state of the reserve forces, although our report calls on the Government to go further. All those measures will help to tie the armed forces into the public that they defend, and to reduce what we describe as the disconnect between the armed forces and the public.
	However, we also have real concerns. We are concerned about the fact that the radical reduction of the Regular Army to 82,500 was simply announced to the Chief of the General Staff, without consultation on whether that was the right figure to address the threats we face, without testing or experimentation, and without being referred to the National Security Council, although it amounted to a reduction of 12,000 personnel and although the figure of 94,500 appeared in the strategic defence and security review as recently as 2010. It was a figure set purely on the basis of the finances that were available, rather than through any reiterative process of negotiation.
	We are concerned about recruitment to both the regulars and the reservists. A career in the armed forces is a fantastically valuable and enjoyable one—as usual, I declare my interest: my eldest daughter is a lieutenant in the reserves—and people should not hold back from applying for that wonderful career. However, recruitment has not gone as well as it should have, partly because of failings in the Army’s own processes, partly because of IT failures, and partly because of the transfer of the role to Capita.
	We are also concerned about the fact that the regulars are being made redundant before the reservists have been recruited. We understand the efforts that everyone is making to put the recruiting difficulties right, and I hear that things are turning around, but turn around they must. As we say in the report, we face the possibility that the Army will be short of personnel in key supporting capabilities.
	Army 2020 presents a radical vision of the future role and structure of the Army. The Government have said it has to work, as there is no plan B. That is the challenge that confronts the Ministry of Defence and the Army. We congratulate the new Chief of the General Staff on his appointment; he has a challenging time ahead. We thank the outgoing Chief of the General Staff for his fantastic work and service over many years. And we commend the report to the House.

John Woodcock: The Committee has produced a considered report, in whose formation I was privileged to be involved at a very late stage. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there is a genuine risk that service numbers may fall so low as to affect our ability to sustain a force which the country needs to retain an expeditionary capability to intervene when necessary, unless there is a longer-term strategic rethink of the way in which we fund defence activities?

James Arbuthnot: I do consider that there is that risk, and I consider that it is a twofold risk. There is the risk that already exists because of the recruiting issues about which we have expressed concern, but there is an even greater risk of further raids on the defence budget in the future. I personally believe that the defence budget should increase, but in any event we must guard against both those risks.

Julian Brazier: My right hon. Friend and I visited the Army recruiting and training centre together. Does he agree that it is truly astonishing that it is only since the arrival of the new director general, Major General Chris Tickell, that really obvious things—such as data protection for medicals, returning some of the focus on recruitment to potential recruits and, above all, sorting out the software—are at last being dealt with for the purposes of both regular and reserve recruiting?

James Arbuthnot: I am far too old to be astonished by anything, but I will say that many such issues came to light, and were dealt with, only as a result of my hon. Friend’s assiduity and fantastic work.

Kevan Jones: I thank the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee for their report. Does he think that it confirms what may of us have been saying for a long time, namely that Army 2020 is being driven by financial considerations? The most worrying part of the report that I read was the part that revealed that the permanent secretary to the MOD, rather than the head of the Army, had set the Army numbers. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that further redundancies in the regular forces should be paused until the recruitment problems have been sorted out?

James Arbuthnot: In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s final question, I would say that we may be too late for that, because the recruitment notices have probably already been delivered. However, it is worrying that the 82,500 figure does not appear to have been subjected to any tests or experiments to establish whether it adequately addressed the threats that the country faces. As I said in my brief statement, I think it should have been a
	reiterative process. Obviously, there is a financial envelope within which we all have to work. Whether that is large enough rather depends on the threats we face.

Bob Russell: I would like to place on record my appreciation of the right hon. Gentleman, who steps down as Chairman of the Defence Committee shortly. Does he agree that as the final five or six years of this decade unfold, if circumstances require it—notwithstanding the fact that civil servants determined the size of the Army—the Government should step in and increase recruitment so that the country gets the Army it should have?

James Arbuthnot: I do agree with the hon. Gentleman, who also does assiduous work on the Defence Committee. It should not be civil servants who determine the size of the Army; it should be this House that determines the size of the Army—it should be Ministers. Ministers are, of course, in overall control, but these are issues that should be discussed by the House of Commons on a regular basis and determined by Ministers.

Madeleine Moon: According to Ministry of Defence figures, there is a shortfall in jobs across the military. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of our report’s most alarming findings was the number of vacancies in specialist trades, where jobs are being cut and the right personnel are not being recruited? The Army had the equivalent of 8,000 specialist vacancies it could not recruit for.

James Arbuthnot: I agree with the hon. Lady, who serves so wonderfully on the Select Committee. These issues are brought out clearly in the report. She also referred to the matter in the estimates debate on Tuesday. There are real shortages in relation to cyber-reserves. We must build up those specialist areas to guard against the threats this country faces.

James Gray: The figures announced in Army 2020 are significantly different from those predicted in the strategic defence and security review in 2015. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the great value of this strong report is not necessarily with regard to the past, because all those redundancies have happened, but with regard to the future? Looking forward to the next SDSR, does he agree that it is vital that if the SDSR is to have any value whatever it must become binding for the subsequent five years?

James Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend, who also serves on the Defence Committee, makes, as always, a very good point. It is a matter not of astonishment, because I am not astonished about anything, but of surprise that the National Security Council has not already been brought into this process. It needs to be brought into the next process on a regular basis.

Hugh Bayley: Current events in Ukraine and the continuing need for our country to persuade our allies in Europe to spend more on defence make me believe the Government should revisit the target they have set of a regular Army of 82,500. Has the Defence Committee looked at the feasibility of a Government revising the figure if they think there is a political need to do so?

James Arbuthnot: In our report the Defence Committee calls on the Government to set out how they would rapidly rebuild the regulars as well as building on the reservists. It is difficult enough as it is to recruit into the regulars and the reservists, but regeneration of that capability is important, and the Government must address that.

John Baron: The report correctly highlights the real possibility of capability gaps, along with the fact that the plans to replace 20,000 regulars with 30,000 reservists were borne of financial necessity rather than strategic design. Has my right hon. Friend made an assessment of the prospect of rising costs leading to false economies, such as the fact that it costs more to deploy reservists than regulars? Although this cost may have been offloaded on to the Treasury, it could still be a cost borne by taxpayers. The cost may be too much and certainly more than originally envisaged given that the plans come out of a need to make savings. The National Audit Office is also looking into the matter on behalf of taxpayers.

James Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We say in the report:
	“We note that Reservists are cheaper to employ so long as they are not called up. This will only prove to be a cost saving so long as future governments are not required to undertake operations. This will need to be closely monitored.”
	I hope—indeed, I am sure—that the Government will do exactly that.

Dai Havard: The report is about Army 2020. It talks about retaining the regimental structure but building an adaptive and reactive force with an integrated reserve. There is money for that until 2019, but there will be a defence and security review in 2015-16. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the resources and the integration quality, not the changes to the structure that have been outlined, will need to be re-examined at that time?

James Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman, who has been on the Defence Committee since, I think, 2003, and who knows more about it than any of us, is quite right. He will raise his points in the next Defence Committee inquiry into Future Force 2020, which will tie together all these issues in the reports that the Committee does to build up to the next defence and security review.

Bob Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the next SDSR should look at the fighting power of the Army, possibly also looking at the concept of critical mass as part of the SDSR?

James Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. The fighting power of the Army seems to have been less used than we would like by the MOD both as a concept and in its language in recent years. Fighting power involves the conceptual component—the thought process—the moral component, which is the ability to get people to fight, and the physical component, or the means to fight. We call on the MOD to produce a regular report on that so that we can understand how well defended the country actually is.

Richard Drax: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Committee on producing what is, I must say, really rather a disturbing report, certainly from my perspective. He talks about Army 2020 as a radical vision, but I am still not quite clear whether he believes it is radically good or radically bad. The report says that the Committee members have “considerable doubts” as to whether Army 2020
	“will meet the needs of the UK’s national security.”
	I cannot think of anything more serious than that.

James Arbuthnot: Well, it is radical in that it goes to the root of what the Army is about. It changes the entire configuration of the Army from a predominantly—hugely so—regular Army with a very small proportion of reservists, to an Army of 82,500 regulars and 30,000 reservists. That is certainly radical. I think certain things really work well, but there are other things which are not working so well about which we have real concerns. I have said that and we have made that point in the report.

Tobias Ellwood: I certainly look forward to the Government response to this report. Much of it focuses on the rebalancing of the regular and reservist ratio, and I should declare an interest as a reservist myself. Many reservists currently fail to secure their bounty or credits for promotion because they miss their annual camp. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new ambitious reservist recruitment targets, as spelled out on page 38 of his report, are more likely to be met if the Army is more flexible in allowing a series of four-day commitments to be completed throughout the year for those who are unable—for work or family reasons—to make the fixed dates of an annual eight to 14-day camp?

James Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend knows far more about it than I do. I am sure he is right. I am sure the answer is in the report somewhere, but I cannot put my finger on exactly where.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Security of Women in Afghanistan

Lindsay Hoyle: I ask Members to speak for the usual 10 to 15 minutes. There will be time pressure on the next debate, so it would be helpful if people could be brief, as I do not wish to introduce a time limit. However, I will do so if pushed.

Robert Smith: I beg to move,
	That this House recognises, ahead of critical presidential elections in April 2014, the essential contribution of Afghan human rights defenders to building peace and security in their country; further recognises the extreme challenges, including violent attacks and killings, that they face as a result of their peaceful work; believes that sustainable peace and security cannot be achieved in Afghanistan without women’s full participation; and encourages the UK Government to improve its support and protection for women human rights defenders in Afghanistan.
	I am sure that all hon. Members would like to take this opportunity to offer their sympathy to the family and friends of the soldier who died yesterday at Camp Bastion, bringing to 448 the number of British personnel who have died while serving in Afghanistan.
	I would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate on the security of women in Afghanistan.
	Many people will remember 11 September 2001. I remember that I was trying to get a survival suit on while waiting for a helicopter to bring me back from a visit to an offshore platform when the offshore installation manager came to us and said, “There’s been an aircraft crash in New York; I’ll put it on the telly.” When we got off the helicopter at Aberdeen airport, we saw on the news that there had been another crash. It was obviously not an accident; it was a serious situation. That event has linked the mountains of Afghanistan and the living rooms of the UK and tied our two countries together since 2001. I pay tribute to the troops and to the staff of the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the non-governmental organisations for all the work that they have done in Afghanistan since then to try to establish a more stable and secure situation for that country and for the wider world.
	On a visit to Afghanistan in 2007, while I was serving on the International Development Select Committee, I saw at first hand some of the challenges involved, and some of the achievements, especially those relating to the role of women in society. It was particularly memorable and moving to visit a classroom of girls, and I remember sitting next to a girl who enthusiastically showed me the homework that she had taken from her school bag. Those girls were able to engage in the learning process again. In the context of the transition in Afghanistan, it is telling that on the successor Committee’s more recent visit to the same school, it was felt inappropriate that Committee members should visit the classroom where the girls were. That might be a measure of the hardening of attitudes towards women that is beginning to cause concern.
	We also saw a project for start-up businesses, and it was pointed out to us that loans to women were considered far more secure than loans to men, because the women entrepreneurs repaid their loans far more effectively than the men. There was a great deal of enthusiasm for the range of businesses that could support the Afghan economy. We also visited a maternity hospital in Lashkar Gah, where DFID had built accommodation for the training of midwives. The development of women’s health and the support for engaging with women was recognised as an important contribution.
	This debate is timely because international women’s day is coming up at the weekend. The security situation in Afghanistan is changing with the withdrawal of international security assistance force troops, the handover to Afghan security forces and the election of a new President in April. Progress has been made since 2001, but it has been fragile.

Hugh Bayley: I travelled to Afghanistan with the hon. Gentleman on that Select Committee visit in 2007. When our troops come back from Afghanistan and no longer have a security role in the country, we will not be able to enforce the rights of women in the way that we have to some extent been able to do while our troops have been in the country. The hon. Gentleman has been explaining how much DFID has achieved in changing the prospects of women through its aid programme. Does he agree that that aid programme should be maintained and should have a footprint across the whole of the country, rather than just being based in the capital, Kabul?

Robert Smith: I certainly recognise the crucial importance of the aid programme in building on what has been achieved to date. I also recognise that we need to engage with the whole of Afghanistan to get the messages across.

Tobias Ellwood: I commend my hon. Friend for the work he does with the all-party parliamentary group on Afghanistan. He talks about the challenges for the whole of Afghanistan. Will he join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development on the work that the Department has done to promote the interests of women? I have visited the country a number of times, and things have changed—albeit slowly—in the areas of education, health and access to justice. Does my hon. Friend also agree, however, that there are too many disparate agendas? DFID does excellent work, but it often takes place separately from that done by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the non-governmental organisations operating there. Given that we have been in Afghanistan for more than a decade, do we perhaps need greater co-ordination to achieve the success that we wish to see?

Robert Smith: Effective co-ordination between all the agencies involved is an important part of maximising the benefit and working together. The conference in London in November could provide an opportunity to focus the minds of all those agencies on adopting a co-ordinated approach.
	I want to put on record the names of some of the victims of the attacks on women that have taken place in Afghanistan. Islam Bibi, a senior policewoman from
	Helmand province, was murdered last July. A few months later, another senior policewoman from Helmand, Lieutenant Negar, was also murdered. Parliamentarian Rooh Gul survived an attack in which her driver and eight-year-old daughter were killed in August. Parliamentarian Fariba Kakar was kidnapped by insurgents and held for ransom before, fortunately, being released in September. Sushmita Banerjee, a well-known author who had written about life under the Taliban, was dragged out of her home and shot 15 times in September. December 2013 was a deadly month for Afghan women. A policewoman, Masooma, from Nimruz was shot on 5 December, and on 19 December a policewoman and a pregnant teacher were found hanged in Uruzgan. In January 2014, Yalda Waziri, a senior government official in Herat, was murdered by unknown attackers who shot her from a motorbike. High-profile attacks such as those get into the news, but many more victims in everyday life go under the radar. Nevertheless, we should be concerned about them, too.

Madeleine Moon: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the problems that women human rights defenders across Afghanistan are facing? Many of them are continuing to try to work and travel, but they are finding it increasingly difficult, and their lives and their families are under constant threat. That shows the risk that they will be under once we finally withdraw from the country.

Robert Smith: Yes, the lack of security presents a huge challenge for human rights defenders. That makes it even more important to have in place as effective a strategy as possible among the agencies that will continue to work in Afghanistan.

Bob Stewart: Having been involved with human rights in the field in Bosnia, and having heard my hon. Friend’s litany of appalling crimes against women, I am really concerned about how once we have gone we will be able to reduce those numbers. It will have to be done by the security forces of Afghanistan, and that is a huge commitment. I am not quite sure how we can help.

Robert Smith: We can help by maintaining our engagement in Afghanistan through DFID and the Foreign Office and through NGOs. We can also help by highlighting our values and the importance of women to society there, and by engaging in debate with Afghanistan. But yes, the security is going to be delivered by the Afghan forces.

Nicola Blackwood: This is an incredibly important debate. Saferworld recently found a direct correlation between increased insecurity and violence against women and decreasing public participation among women. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Afghan women are not just victims and that the incredibly brave women who remain involved in public life deserve our support and our wholehearted protection, wherever we can give it? That is one key way in which we can show our support and make a difference to women in Afghanistan.

Robert Smith: We get the opportunity, as parliamentarians, to meet some of those brave women on delegations from the Afghan Parliament. They reinforce
	the case that, from the perspective of women in Afghanistan, the engagement of ISAF has been seen as supportive and important.

Penny Mordaunt: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in also paying tribute to those women who are participating directly in the security of Afghanistan—the women who, often in the face of tremendous opposition, are training to be police officers, members of the army or members of special forces? The House may be surprised to learn about the latter group; we too frequently use the word “trailblazer”, but they really are trailblazers.

Robert Smith: Yes, the bravery such women show is immensely inspiring. Again, it shows the need for us to continue to focus on Afghanistan, even though our troops are no longer there, bringing it to our news and engaging the public. We need to make sure we build as much as we can on what has been achieved to date.
	One suggestion from Amnesty International is to have a country-specific plan on human rights defenders, which could ensure that training and awareness-raising occurs with mission staff on gender considerations, and on the particular challenges facing those who work to promote human rights and those who face risk because of their work; prioritise gendered approaches to the support and protection of HRDs; appoint a liaison officer to act as focal point for HRDs for information exchange and case support; explore with civil society organisations and HRDs—this depends on security considerations—safe opportunities to support local events; and outline how and what support protection would be delivered in conjunction with, or through, the European Union and United Nations.

Madeleine Moon: During the Defence Committee’s last visit to Afghanistan we met women at the forefront of trying to change the society. I turned to the leader of the women we were meeting and said, “In the time leading up to our departure, what is the most important thing we could provide to you?” Surprisingly, her response was, “Artillery.” She was saying, “Unless we know we are going to be able to defend ourselves against the Taliban and reach a point where we can build a society outside the Taliban’s horrific views on women, nothing will change in Afghanistan.”

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I make the point again that long interventions are not helpful, either to this debate or the one afterwards? Let us try to contain them, especially where a Member has already had one go.

Robert Smith: That lady’s message is a very important one about bringing support and resources to the Afghan security forces to make sure that they can maintain the security situation. The engagement with human rights defenders is an important part of ensuring that the messages get through about the important role of women. We need to engage with the men of Afghanistan about the fact that where a society does not use half its population, its economic potential is not being achieved, and that if a society does not engage with the next generation of women in education, it is failing to achieve its potential. That will be a major cultural challenge.
	The Government will be hosting a summit in November 2014 where they could focus on the needs of women by ensuring that women’s representation at that summit is substantial; by supporting human rights defenders to travel to take part in the summit; by establishing formal processes of consultation with Afghan women and women human rights defenders in advance of the summit, to ensure their input into its format and content, and to ensure that women who take part receive protection from retaliation and intimidation; and by working to build on the Tokyo commitments.

James Gray: rose—

Robert Smith: Time is beginning to run short, but I will take one more intervention.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely interesting and thoughtful speech, but will he give consideration to one other thing? Although it is important that we should provide safety for these human rights defenders and high-profile women in Afghanistan, the good old Chinese saying that women hold up half the sky is particularly true in Afghanistan, which is a matriarchal society. Does he agree that one of the most important things to do is put in place defence strategies to keep the Taliban under control once we have left, so that women who run the households in Afghanistan can be allowed to do so?

Robert Smith: Yes, the security situation is crucial, because a resurgence of the Taliban will start to knock back all the achievements made; we will be back to square one and all the risks that evolve from that scenario will be back to haunt us. It is crucial that we maintain our engagement.
	Will the Secretary of State say what assessment her Department has made of the different programmes to support women—which have and which have not been successful—so that in the future we can focus on those that have had achievements? As I said, 2001 brought our two countries together, and progress has been made, but it is fragile and we must not turn our backs now when handing over security to the Afghan Government. I urge the House to support this motion.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am introducing an eight-minute limit.

Pat Glass: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I also wish to thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate. I speak whenever I can in this House on the issues of education and women, and today I want to bring those issues together in this debate on the security situation of women in Afghanistan. I do so for a number of reasons, one of which is that when I became an MP in May 2010, the very first thing—and I mean the very first thing—I had to do officially was attend the funeral of Daryn Roy, a young man who was born and brought up in Dipton in my constituency and who died in Camp Bastion in Afghanistan right at the end of April 2010. When I attended his funeral, I found that his parents took great comfort from the fact that he had told them that he was fighting in Afghanistan on behalf of not only Britain, but the people of Afghanistan and that he and his colleagues were there not only to deal with
	terrorists and remove them from that sorry land, but to create a land in which education could be brought to children—all children, both girls and boys. He had taken great pride in the fact that he and his colleagues were protecting women from the worst excesses of the Taliban.
	As we know, the lives of women in Afghanistan have never been easy, but under the spiritual leader Mullah Omar the Taliban brought a whole new level of misery and terror to the lives of many, particularly women. Women were not allowed to work outside the home; and they were not allowed to leave their home unless accompanied by a male relative. Women who could not afford a burqa or who did not have a living male relative were, in effect, housebound for four years. Education for women and girls was banned by the Taliban, and as most of the teachers in Afghanistan were women, the education of boys and girls suffered. Throughout that time, brave women teachers continued secretly to teach young girls, and some boys, in their homes. Information about secret schools was spread by word of mouth, from woman to woman. Through the generosity and bravery of these women teachers, some young girls did continue to receive an education.
	The international invasion and the election of President Karzai’s Government did lead to a relaxation of some restrictions on women, but women’s lives continued to be difficult. His Government endorsed a code of conduct that continued to require women to be accompanied by a male relative when travelling and not to mingle with strange men—anyone outside the family—in places such as schools, markets and offices. Although that did not amount to a ban, it made work and life very difficult for most women.
	We know that Afghanistan continues to be one of the most challenging places in the world to be a woman. More women and girls die in pregnancy there than almost anywhere else in the world. Nine out of 10 women cannot read or write. One in 10 children dies before their fifth birthday. The life expectancy of a woman in Afghanistan is 44 years of age, one of the lowest in the world. More than 50% of Afghan women are married or engaged by the age of 10; 60% are married by the age of 16; 80% of marriages are either forced or arranged; and violence against women is endemic.
	There are 1.5 million widows in Afghanistan, one of the highest proportions in the world, 94% of whom are illiterate. The average age of a widow is 35. Widows without male relatives prepared to support them have few options, and most are forced to beg or are forced into prostitution.
	Education for women has improved since 2001, but still, in 2011, of the 8 million students in Afghanistan, only 30% of them were women and girls. Things have improved, and education is no longer banned, but the Taliban has continued to conduct a reign of terror against schools. There is a campaign of burning down schools and of killing students and teachers, and the Taliban has been helped in this by its supporters in Pakistan who have banned the delivery of school books and texts to Afghanistan.
	Teachers and those running schools endure violent threats from the Taliban on a daily basis. There are attacks on their families and they risk losing their homes and those closest to them, and yet they persevere. They continue to provide essential education to women and girls across the country at great cost to themselves.

Tobias Ellwood: I am reluctant to interrupt what is a very powerful speech, but does she agree that there is huge concern about the contracts for schools and clinics? The west builds them, but then do not provide the contracts for the teachers to continue there—certainly after we have left. That applies not only in the southern area, the Pashtun area, where the Taliban operate, but in the north.

Pat Glass: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the Minister is listening.
	As I was saying, it is because of the teachers—my professional colleagues of whom I am so proud—and others working in women's health, human rights and security that the lot of women in Afghanistan has improved. However, that is now at risk as the time of withdrawal draws close. Most international forces are set to withdraw this year, and, as the deadline draws near, women activists, women teachers and doctors and those working on behalf of women in Afghanistan become increasingly concerned about the future.
	I want to give just one small example of what is happening now. We worry about what will happen after we withdraw in 2014, but what is going on now? In 2009, the law on the elimination of violence against women finally criminalised acts of child marriage, rape and other forms of violence against women. Despite that, there was a 27% increase in attacks on women last year in a society where attacks on women usually take place within the family and are rarely reported or challenged. Now a small, seemingly inconsequential change in the criminal law could make domestic violence against women almost impossible to prosecute. The new law proposes that relatives can no longer testify when a woman has been assaulted or raped. Essentially, that means that no one can testify on a woman’s behalf, because in Afghanistan a woman rarely sees anyone outside of the family. Relatives are the only people who would ever be privy to a woman being abused, who would see her afterwards or who could testify on her behalf. The change in the law would mean that women could be beaten and raped without any fear of prosecution for the persecutor.
	We are withdrawing from Afghanistan, but we have not gone yet. This Parliament, the British Government and international forces need to tell President Karzai now, firmly and loudly, that this kind of law must be repealed. It is an offence to Afghan women and to women everywhere and it needs to go. This is not what Daryn Roy and the other young men and women from constituencies up and down this country fought and died for. Although I understand the need to withdraw, surely we owe an assurance to our war dead and to those who have been injured and who have fought on our behalf in Afghanistan that they did not fight for nothing and that they leave a lasting legacy that includes a better, safer and educated future for the women and girls of Afghanistan.

Malcolm Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) for securing this timely debate and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it to happen. I feel privileged to be taking part.
	As important as this debate is—and it is very important —we should not overestimate our ability to influence cultural change within Afghanistan just by speaking in
	this Chamber; the challenge is much bigger than that. Fundamentally, the change will have to come from people within Afghanistan whom we can support.
	In January, Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch said:
	“Afghan women are all too well aware that international donors are walking away from Afghanistan.”
	As the Secretary of State is in her place, I am sure that she will want to make it clear that that is not the case with Britain. Indeed, the longer and deeper our commitment is, and the more that we talk about it, the better we will be able to support those in Afghanistan who are working for change.
	Reference has been made to the visit the International Development Committee made to the country in 2007—we also visited it 18 months ago—in which we had a robust meeting with President Karzai. He was challenged on the rights of women. Specifically, we talked about the fact that more than 80% were beaten by their husbands and other male family members, and that those who fled violent relationships were jailed while the perpetrators of the violence had immunity from any sanction.
	At the end of the exchange, Mr Karzai said that we had to understand that Afghanistan was a conservative country with its own values. He said that the last ruler who challenged those values was the king who was assassinated in 1929, and Mr Karzai did not want to repeat that example.
	In an article in The Guardian last month, Nushin Arbadzadah warned of the challenges. She said that
	“the idea that we could empower Afghan women by making them aware of their individual rights was preposterous and bound to fail from the inception. Anyone who has spent even two days in Afghanistan knows that individualism as a concept does not exist there. The idea that we could treat women as a separate entity, legal or political, and disconnected from their family was flawed from the start.”
	She said that those who fought for those values were likely to do so perpetually and in isolation. In her conclusion, she said:
	“Afghanistan’s patriarchal clans have survived leftist coups and rightwing wars, becoming the only source of stability in a society constantly in turmoil. To dismantle their power would amount to freedom not only for women but also for men. But to reach that end, we need more than the rhetoric of individual rights imported from the other side of the planet.”
	That is a sobering article. We feel angry and we state our case, but we must realise what we are up against. Very often, it is women, and not just men, who are oppressing women, and not supporting them when they stand up, which is why I agree with my hon. Friend that the role of men is important too and that we need to be part of it.

Bob Stewart: It is not only the role of men that is important, but the men themselves. They are the people who drive the change, and we must put all our efforts into making them understand and be more enlightened, in our way of thinking, towards their women.

Malcolm Bruce: Of course I accept that, but we should not underestimate the challenge. That is why we need to work with local women and women’s groups and accept the way in which they want to achieve change and support them.
	Our second report on Afghanistan, which was published 18 months ago, said:
	“The treatment of women in Afghanistan after troops pull out in 2014 will be the litmus test of whether we have succeeded in improving the lives of ordinary Afghans over the last ten years.”
	We urged the Government to prioritise women in their programmes, especially on education, supporting shelters and providing legal advice. I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to give us some insight about how that is being done under the DFID programme.
	Like others, we have met articulate women MPs and civil rights campaigners who were fearful that there would be push back on the gains, but were determined to protect and advance the progress that had been made. We all recognise that educating girls and women is an essential part of that.
	Everyone knows that Afghanistan has an uncertain future. We do not know what the next Government will look like or who will be President, although the candidates are now lining up. The idea that the whole country will quickly fall back into the arms of the Taliban seems unlikely. Many of the people who suffered under the Taliban have gained under the current situation and will not readily succumb to that again. Furthermore, the Taliban is not a single, coherent entity.
	I note that Zalmai Rassoul, one of the frontrunners for the presidency, has chosen a woman as one of his running mates. Habiba Sarabi was the former governor of Bamiyan Province. Some members of the Committee visited the province briefly in 2012. Having suffered at the hands of the Taliban, not only through the destruction of the famous Buddhas but through much more serious infringements of lives and livelihoods, the people of the predominantly Shi’ite Hazara province of Bamiyan clearly told us that they were determined to pursue their own destiny and will at all odds resist any re-incursion by the Taliban. The principal of the university told us that fathers and husbands were actively encouraging their daughters and wives to go to university and that a third of the students there are now female.
	I must also say, however, that I and a number of other members of the Committee met a young woman in Kabul. She was a highly educated and very articulate postgraduate, but when I asked her about her personal circumstances she said that she would of course have to marry whoever her brother, who was the head of her household, chose for her. I asked whether her brother would consult her, to which she replied, “How on earth would my brother have any idea what kind of man I want anyway?” I asked what she would do if she did not like that person or if she suffered violence and she said, “I am used to violence; I can accept it.” She is an intelligent, educated and articulate woman, more or less saying that she must succumb to her fate.
	We have made progress. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine rightly referred to girls’ education. The front cover of our first report in 2007 was a photograph of girls in school because we thought that was symptomatic of how Afghanistan was changing. My hon. Friend rightly said that 2001 was a moment of destiny, but I think that Afghanistan is a country in which the UK would be engaged regardless of that because it is one of the poorest countries on the planet and because we make a commitment to try to lift people out of absolute poverty. It is a poor country seeking to develop and exactly the kind of country that we want to help.
	The Taliban are against development of all kinds, but many Afghans have experienced the benefits that development can bring. They have glimpsed the opportunities and will not, in my view, simply allow themselves to be pushed back. I suggest that our job is to stand by those who seek to move forward on their own terms. We must do everything we can to support those women who are campaigning to secure progress, but we must follow their leadership and not impose our own. They will understand how to make that change better than anything we can do. Although there are absolute rights and values that we stand by, we must accept that change will be brought about by people inside the community who understand how to do it. We must stand by them and say that we are here to help them in any way we can to secure progress.
	I am grateful that the Secretary of State is replying to the debate and hope that she will be able to say that we are there to stand by Afghan women for as long as it takes.

Fiona O'Donnell: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) and I congratulate him on ensuring that the Select Committee on International Development focused on women’s rights in its report. I can do that in all modesty because I was not a member of the Select Committee when it began its inquiry. I was involved in the latter stages, but the first issue I raised, in the first session I attended, was women’s rights and security in Afghanistan. I questioned the former Secretary of State about the effectiveness and scope of what was being done and I give credit to the current Secretary of State for her tenacity and commitment on this issue. We have seen progress and movement.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) on introducing the debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have it. This might sound slightly strange, but I want to apologise to members of Musselburgh twinning association for no longer being able to join them this evening. I hope they will realise that, as the right hon. Member for Gordon said, it is vital that our voices are heard by women in Afghanistan so that they know that we stand by them and are committed to their safety, security, human rights and right to participate in Afghan society at every level. I hope that the association will think it is worth while my being in the Chamber today.
	As Amnesty International has said:
	“sustainable security cannot be achieved in Afghanistan without the full participation of women; moreover, for security to be meaningful, it must include security for women”.
	As established in UN Security Council resolution 1325, the UK Government have a responsibility to ensure not only that women participate in all peace and security-related processes, but that that is seen as vital to the success of those processes.
	Last year the UN reported that the lack of female participation in peace processes was a shortcoming. The establishment of an elite women’s advisory board charged with ensuring women’s participation in the peace process in Afghanistan is undermined by the limited number of women—just nine out of 70—on the High Peace Council. That is simply not good enough.
	The UK Government have said that they are committed, as they are, to ensuring that the progress achieved on rights is safeguarded. As international partners withdraw from Afghanistan, however, this is a worrying year for many women. As other Members have said, it is now increasingly for the Afghans to safeguard progress and hold their Government to account for their record on human and women’s rights.
	Progress has been made in Afghanistan by the Afghans for the Afghans, and I pay tribute to some of the advances we have seen. In 2003 the Afghan Government ratified the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women; in 2004 the new constitution outlawed discrimination and enshrined equal rights for women and men; in 2008 the national action plan for women of Afghanistan was launched; and in 2009 the elimination of violence against women law was adopted. About 20 women’s shelters have been established, which is a start, and they are accommodating about 350 women. Some 25% of Government jobs are filled by women, 2.7 million girls were enrolled in Afghan schools in 2011-12 compared with fewer than 10,000 in 2001, and 28% of MPs are women, a record that some in this House should seek to emulate.
	It is essential that Afghan women human rights defenders, including those in civil society, public servants and parliamentarians, should be able to continue their work and make further progress. I want to be clear that that progress remains under threat and the situation in Afghanistan appears precarious, with women’s rights threatened. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) spoke about article 26 and the threat it poses to prosecutions for domestic violence. A recent report from Human Rights Watch raises concerns about the number of convictions for assaults on all sorts on women, and I hope that the Secretary of State will address the fact that they are particularly prevalent in underdeveloped and remote regions of the country.
	We have heard about the cases of prominent women who have been attacked but, as the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine said, hidden behind those are attacks on ordinary Afghan women. I want to highlight a few of my concerns. Last year, the lower house of the Afghan Parliament passed a revision of the country’s electoral law, deleting a guarantee that at least 25% of seats in each of the 34 provincial councils should be for female candidates. Thanks to an intervention from the upper house, that has been set at 20%. Last May, conservative MPs called for the repeal of the 2009 law on the elimination of violence against women, focusing on the minimum marriage age, the abolition of shelters and criminal penalties for rape.
	There has been almost exclusive impunity for high-profile attacks, but I want to highlight the case of one woman, Sahar Gul, who has been let down by the Government in Afghanistan. Three family members were convicted of the starvation and torture of that teenager, and they have served only a year of their 10-year sentence. In 2011, Sahar’s stepbrother sold her to be married for $5,000. She was about 13 at the time and soon after the marriage her in-laws attempted to force her into prostitution. When she resisted, they locked her in the basement, pulled out her fingernails and burned her. It is simply not good enough that the perpetrators should be released after just a year.
	A Ministry of Justice working group has actually assisted in drafting a law that would have reinstated public execution by stoning for the crime of adultery. Too many women and girls are in prison or juvenile detention centres for what are called “moral crimes”. Women are having to suffer the indignity and pain of vaginal examinations to establish whether they are virgins.
	I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State’s speech. The initiative from the Foreign Secretary to try to prevent violence against women is welcome, but the real way to prevent it is by changing these societies. I am incredibly lucky to have three grandsons and I hope for a granddaughter one day, but if I were living in Afghanistan I would not be hoping for a granddaughter.

Alistair Burt: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) on introducing the debate and giving the House an opportunity to discuss this matter. As the House knows, for two years I had the privilege of being the Minister responsible for Afghanistan in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I pay tribute to all those I worked with at the time who were involved with Afghanistan. The House rightly pays tribute regularly to our armed forces for the extraordinary work they do, but it is also important to remember the contribution made by civilians from this country who go out to Afghanistan to engage locally in some of the many complex issues that have been mentioned and to work with different international organisations. I also want to pay tribute to experienced parliamentarians. Once again this debate is enlightened by colleagues who have been to Afghanistan and met those engaged in some of the difficulties we are talking about.
	When I become the Minister with responsibility for Afghanistan, I was clear from the beginning that the development of women in society and the importance of maintaining the progress that had been made was central to many organisations that are campaigning for, and worried about, the position of women. I pay tribute to Amnesty and other organisations that have done so much work in that respect, but they were always pushing at an open door. I want to make it clear to the House how central the role of women in Afghanistan was to the development of policy, within both the FCO and DFID, right through the period when I was involved and beyond.
	When the Foreign Secretary published the United Kingdom’s national action plan in response to UN Security Council resolution 1325 in relation to the development of societies post conflict, he said:
	“No lasting peace can be achieved after conflict unless the needs of women are met—not only justice for the victims of crimes of war, but their active involvement in creating a society in which their rights are respected and their voices are heard.”
	I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary, who has been quite remarkable—I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) for what she said about this—in his dedication to the rights of women and his concern about the use of conflict to damage women. He has been quite exceptional in that regard. I know from personal experience how much he was concerned about Afghanistan and how much support he gave me and others in our work.
	That there has been progress in Afghanistan since 2001 is clear—it has been documented by other Members, so I will not detain the House long on this—with regard to health, education, justice and participation. Women have seen their circumstances improve. Some 3 million girls are now in education and there are now women teachers, whereas there were not before. To some extent, that helps to contradict the sense, which some portray, that it is a society that it is impossible to change. If it was impossible for it to change, those brave women would not have come forward, which is another reason why they deserve support.
	We understand very well that there are different cultures in different societies, but we have a culture too. Our culture and our tradition in this country is to stand up for what we think is right and to say very clearly, even though value judgments are involved, when we think something is wrong. The subjugation and terrorisation of women is wrong. We know, however, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) said, that that cannot be done from the Chamber of a Parliament thousands of miles away. It needs to be done by working with those on the ground. Again, the extraordinary work that has been done in capacity building and support over recent years has, I believe, made a significant difference and will continue to do so.

Sarah Wollaston: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that we should also pay tribute to voluntary organisations such as Afghan Connection, which is on ground in areas such as north-east Afghanistan and putting in place education and training for teachers?

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I could name a number of different organisations—I will mention one in a moment. Men and women are going out from this country to do extraordinary work with people in Afghanistan and to support the bravery of women and others there who are working for change.
	I remember on my first visit to Afghanistan meeting a group of women civil society activists and being told straightforwardly, “If you ask women in our society whether life has changed for the better since 2001, between 60% and 70% will say yes. But if you ask how many are afraid for the future, 99% will say yes.” The constant refrain, particularly as we got closer to naming a date when the United Kingdom’s armed forces would withdraw—2014—was, “Are you all going? Are the lights going out?” I remember being very committed to saying, on behalf of the Government, “Absolutely not. People are staying and the commitment to Afghanistan will remain.”
	It is very important to recognise that that is done in conjunction and co-operation with brave individuals who are there. I could name many, but let me refer to just two or three in the short time available. Habiba Sarabi, who was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon, is a remarkable woman who made her name working on women’s literacy, before joining the Government in 2004 after the Taliban had gone. She is now the governor of Bamiyan province. Sometimes the media can present the image that it is all about Helmand, but it is not. There are places where things are happening and women are engaged in society and want to remain engaged. She is a remarkable woman.
	Fawzia Koofi, a member of Parliament whom I have met on more than one occasion, is an outstandingly brave woman. When she was a baby, her mother left her outside to die in the Afghan sun because she did not want another daughter in the house. She was rescued after a few hours, burnt almost to a cinder. From that experience she developed an extraordinary attitude to life and a determination to fight for the rights of women. She was recently interviewed and said a few things—this follows what other Members have said—about the current difficulties. She said:
	“It’s becoming harder to work on women’s issues. Conservative colleagues are more confident to open their mouths… But there is more awareness among women to stand by themselves and defend their rights… You cannot talk about women’s education, women’s economic empowerment and social empowerment without their political participation. So for any young woman I would encourage them to have the courage to put herself forward.”
	With examples like Fawzia to follow, young women can do just that.
	I want to mention two individuals from the United Kingdom. The first is Linda Norgrove. I was involved in the hostage crisis when Linda was kidnapped. She subsequently died in an attempt to free her in October 2010. I attended her funeral and remember what a remarkable occasion it was, as people remembered what she had done. She worked with widows, in particular, in eastern Afghanistan. Her parents have set up a foundation in her memory, another one of those organisations that work to remember a remarkable person from this country who lost their life because of their commitment to the women of Afghanistan. She managed a team of some 500 staff who moved from district to district in eastern Afghanistan, working with communities to implement projects in conjunction with local people. That reinforces the point that it is not a question of imposing values from outside; it is about working with others there who want to make a success of things. The second individual I will mention from the United Kingdom is my noble Friend Baroness Hodgson, who has given a lot of time and effort in Afghanistan, and at great personal cost and risk to herself.
	Finally, I want to mention Hillary Clinton. I remember my early meetings with Mrs Clinton when she was Secretary of State. It was clear that her commitment to the advancement of women was no political gesture, but firm and determined. We were constantly being asked how we would put into practice what we believed about the future of women in Afghanistan, so she made sure that it was in the Bonn declaration in Tokyo. Her commitment has been remarkable.
	As has been said, we know that there are limits to what we can do. Ultimately, it will have to be Afghanistan that enforces what we believe. But our constant engagement, our determination not to leave people alone, the fact that we will continue to talk about it here and the fact that men and women from the United Kingdom will continue to go to Afghanistan to support the people there will be the clearest demonstration we can give that, although things are written in treaties, we will follow them ourselves. We will do all we can to support the brave women who are already working in that country. There is much to achieve, but we have achieved a lot. I am deeply grateful to colleagues for the way in which they have worked on this over a number of years. We owe it to the people of Afghanistan, and to all those
	from the United Kingdom who have lost their lives there, to work with others for a better future, which they deserve and have been richly working towards.

Naomi Long: It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who was a hugely impressive Minister during his time in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He set out clearly the Government’s policy on and support for freedom and justice internationally. It is a genuine pleasure to follow his important comments.
	This is an important debate, not only as a precursor to international women’s day, but because it is happening on world book day, given the importance we place on access to information and education in transforming society and improving conditions for women abroad.
	I do not want to repeat too much of what has been said but, as we are aware, the Afghan constitution affords equal protection to men and women. However, there has been growing controversy recently about the role of Afghan women in society. At 28% of members, the representation of women in the Afghan Parliament exceeds the level in this House. Although Afghanistan has quotas and we do not, we take proactive action to encourage young women to get involved in Parliament, and young women from our constituencies are visiting Parliament today and we hope that that will encourage them to take this Parliament seriously.
	Many women who have stepped forward into politics in Afghanistan find themselves at the forefront of abuse and attacks, and although there has been progress, it is important to maintain it. According to the Afghan independent human rights commission, attacks on women and human rights defenders are increasing and include attacks on parliamentarians, the murder of female police officers, the targeting of critics of the Taliban, and the targeting of their families. Their male relatives—their sons, their fathers and their brothers—are often targeted as a way of silencing women who want to stand up and have a voice.
	The right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) was correct when he said that if we want to transform society in Afghanistan the issue is not just about speaking to women there. Unless women have the support and encouragement of the men around them and wider society, it will be incredibly difficult for them to continue the change that is happening.
	Honour killings and punishments for breaking traditional Taliban rules of society are still widespread. According to the United Nations, 87.2% of Afghan women and girls have experienced some form of violence or abuse. The UN described that as a pandemic and it is increasingly disturbing when we consider that many women will be totally opposed to reporting abuse, even if it puts their life in danger, because of fear of the consequences of speaking out about their situation.
	There has been progress, and hon. Members have referred to the passage of the law on the elimination of violence against women in 2009, which, for the first time, made rape a crime, and outlawed forced marriage, as well as physical and verbal abuse. However, that must be set against the recent row-back to which the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) referred. Only a few weeks ago, President Karzai had to make last-minute blocks to legislation that would have stopped
	relatives testifying against one another and would have prevented almost all prosecutions for domestic violence and rape. In the last year alone, Parliament has blocked a law to curb violence against women, and cut the quota for women on provincial councils. The justice Ministry has floated a proposal to bring back stoning as a punishment for adultery.
	There has been progress, but it would be wrong for us to be complacent about the amount of work that still needs to be done to change attitudes and to secure women’s position. That comes against the backdrop of the political situation, which is extremely vulnerable. The elections to choose the successor to President Hamid Karzai and the fear that many candidates have links to the Taliban or at least share their ultra-conservative views on societal norms in Afghanistan is a threat to women’s progress.
	The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire paid tribute to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and to the Department for International Development for their work. I add my support and thanks for their work when I have corresponded with them on these issues over the years. They have recognised the importance of women in post-conflict peace building. Societies in which women are safe, empowered to exercise their rights and can move their communities forward are more prosperous and stable as a result. Sustainable security cannot be achieved in Afghanistan or elsewhere unless we ensure the full participation of women at all levels of society, including in building that peace.
	A country where women cannot realise their full rights and experience violence and attacks, both domestically and in the public sphere, almost with impunity, is not a peaceful or secure country; nor can the careful and delicate work that will be required to deal with the legacy of conflict be successful unless women are actively involved. The UK Government have a responsibility under UN Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security to ensure that women’s participation in all peace and security-related processes is not only assured but is seen as vital to the success of those processes.
	I am always reluctant to cite Northern Ireland experience, particularly in a context such as this where the differences are immense and clearly seen. Although our situation is not comparable, some lessons can be learned. We are aware as a society of the important role played by women during the conflict and the post-conflict period. It is important to learn those lessons. Only this week, the deputy director of Relatives For Justice in Northern Ireland, Andrée Murphy, in a blog on a site called Vixens with Convictions, talked about the need for a gendered approach to peace building in Northern Ireland.
	The experience of women in conflict is often distinctly different from that of their male counterparts. Many women find that their views have not been mainstreamed within the peace process and face challenges in post-conflict society when politics moves on and often leaves them behind. Many are affected by the lack of access to justice and many are dealing with the financial consequences of having lost the main breadwinner in their families. Lessons can be learned about how to go forward because without women’s participation in the Afghanistan process, we will face significant challenges in creating stability.
	When western troops withdraw, taking with them money and attention, we must think of the public back home. It is hugely important that we as a Parliament do not lose our attention and focus, so I am encouraged that DFID has continued to see this as an important part of its work among some of the poorest people in the world.
	Human Rights Watch’s 2013 annual report said:
	“With international interest in Afghanistan rapidly waning, opponents of women’s rights seized the opportunity to begin rolling back the progress made since the end of Taliban rule.”
	We cannot allow that important progress to be eroded or diminished. Too much has been lost for that to be the case. The UK Government have been hugely supportive of the democratic process in Afghanistan and have given financial support to initiatives aimed at increasing female participation in politics there. We must work with the international community to ensure that there is a specific country plan to allow that work to be taken forward and to allow those brave women who step forward in Afghanistan to be assured of our full support.

Nicola Blackwood: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) and the Backbench Business Committee on granting this timely debate, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development for her ongoing commitment to the rights of women and girls. As chair of the all-party group on women, peace and security, I have had the opportunity over the years to meet many female Afghan parliamentarians and civil society campaigners to discuss their hopes, but mainly fears, for the future of Afghanistan.
	My first point is that those women whom I have met have not just been victims. They have not even primarily been victims. They have been the most inspiring agents for change. One woman, whom I will not name for her own protection, started up a television show, “Niqab”, which sought to combat the traditional taboo on talking openly about domestic abuse by allowing women victims of domestic abuse to sit in a television show, properly covered, and openly talk about it. That led to increased reporting and openness about domestic abuse in Afghan society. Those are practical steps by Afghan women to improve women’s rights in Afghanistan, but they do so in the face of the most extraordinary challenge.
	As has been said, 87% of women have experienced violence against them. Reported cases of violence against women increased by 28% between 2012 and 2013 and, as was said in the opening speech, there have been nine high-profile victims of assassination in the last six months, but we know that many more victims have not reached the headlines, especially victims in education and health care.
	We must acknowledge that there have been gains since 2001. The constitution now grants equal rights to women, and more girls are in school in Afghanistan than ever before in its history. More than a quarter of Afghanistan’s parliamentarians are female, and of course the elimination of violence against women Act criminalised rape in 2009. However, these gains are fragile, and they are set against a rock-bottom base and a backdrop of poverty, injustice, early enforced marriage, and appalling violence that includes some of the most terrible sexual
	violence that can be imagined. In practice, for the majority of Afghan women, equality must still seem a lifetime away.
	The statistics can seem overwhelming—like a mountain to climb which, with the drawdown approaching ever faster, is out of reach for us. I am reminded of the man who drowned in two inches of water. Statistics can be misleading, because there are practical steps that we can take. If the extraordinary men and women I have met, who are willing to pursue women’s rights in the face of the most appalling abuses, are not willing to give up, then we should not be willing to give up either.

Bob Stewart: After 2014 ends, one of the crucial ways in which we can help Afghan society is by people such as members of the International Development Committee—as well as, of course, the Secretary of State and diplomats—repeatedly going in-country and engaging with the politicians in saying, “This is what we want.” In going out there, parliamentarians are probably being about as effective as we can be.

Nicola Blackwood: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The recent reports by the IDC have been exceptionally valuable in highlighting not only areas of weakness in Government response but areas of strength that could be expanded and extended, and I do not doubt that the Committee will continue that very good work.
	May I press the Secretary of State on some practical steps that the Government can continue to take? In particular, will they ensure that they take all steps possible that will lead to full representation of women in the peace process? Evidence shows extremely clearly that there is a direct correlation between inclusive peace negotiations and a more sustainable peace. So far, we have not seen a very successful effort in this area, and I would like to know exactly what she would like to do to ensure that it can be progressed. Will she update the House on what progress she has made with her commitment to a strategic priority on violence against women and girls in the Afghan operational plan? Will she also update the House on what effect the implementation of the preventing sexual violence initiative could have in Afghanistan after the drawdown? What progress has been made with the gender marker for spending to enable us to track spending by gender throughout future spending in Afghanistan as we move away from Ministry of Defence spending and on to a DFID lead?
	Will the Secretary of State once more consider the benefits of having a UK strategy for protecting women human rights defenders? I know that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office believes that co-operation within the EU process is the right way forward, but I believe that our skill and expertise in the field of gender security makes it natural for the UK to lead on women’s human rights defence and protection measures. I hope that the Government will reconsider their position on that.
	The Afghan men and women I have met who campaign for women’s rights in Parliament and in civil society face some of the gravest threats imaginable, including slander, sexual violence and assassination. In this House, we simply cannot imagine having to face such consequences for our decision to stand for public life. They are incredibly brave and incredibly effective agents for change, and they are our most effective resource for achieving our goals for peace and development in Afghanistan.
	They deserve to know that the United Kingdom will stand by them as they strive for women’s social and economic empowerment in Afghanistan.

Kerry McCarthy: I want to start by joining the tributes to the soldier from 32 Engineer Regiment who died in Helmand yesterday and extending our condolences to his family.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving the House the opportunity to debate this very important topic. I congratulate Amnesty International, which has done so much to ensure that women’s rights in Afghanistan are on the public’s and Parliament’s agendas.
	It is worth briefly recapping the history of women’s rights in Afghanistan and how the situation deteriorated from a country in which, from 1919, women could vote, had relative freedom in what they wore, and had equal political participation, to a country under the Taliban where girls were prevented from going to school and women were not allowed to work or to leave the home without a male chaperone, were barred from showing any skin in public, and could not get involved in politics or speak publicly. The discrimination against women extended to prohibiting access to health care delivered by men, which provided no viable option given that women could not work as doctors or nurses. The punishments for defying such discrimination were severe and brutal; women suffered floggings for some perceived transgressions, and were stoned to death if found guilty of adultery. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) said in her powerful account of life under the Taliban, some women, despite those restrictions, continued very bravely to try to continue their education in secret schools where women worked as teachers.
	Since those years, there has of course been crucial progress. The Afghan constitution gives equal status to women, and in 2009 the Afghan Government introduced the law on the elimination of violence against women. There has been a remarkable expansion in access to education, with the number of girls enrolled in schools increasing from 5,000 in the Taliban’s day to 2.4 million today. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has highlighted the wide-ranging, long-term impact of this change, not only on women’s lives but on attitudes within Afghanistan. It is particularly worth noting how parents at a school supported by the UN special envoy, Angelina Jolie, have pledged to delay their daughters’ marriages so that they may first finish school. That provides an indication not only of how far Afghanistan has come but of the scope for further progress on women’s rights and freedoms.
	As we have heard, there is real concern not only that progress will stall but that the gains could be reversed once the international troops withdraw. Constitutional equality is still not reflected in the reality of life for many women in Afghanistan, and the law on ending violence against women, while a landmark achievement, is still, in many cases, not effectively implemented. The Chair of the International Development Committee, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce), gave the example of the woman who, despite being very articulate and well educated, almost seemed to accept that she would be subjected to violence in her marriage
	and would have to tolerate it, saying that she was used to doing that. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) mentioned similar points.
	Between March and October 2012, the Afghan independent human rights commission documented 4,000 cases of violence against women—a 28% increase on the year before. Some of those cases were cited by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). Amnesty International reports that in the past six months alone, nine high-profile women have been attacked in Afghanistan, including senior police officers who have been murdered, a parliamentarian who survived an attack that killed her eight-year old daughter, the author who wrote about her life under the Taliban and who was dragged from her home and shot, and the senior Government official who was murdered. Most of these attacks have been made with complete impunity. Those tragic cases have received considerable attention due to the women’s prominence, but there have been many other equally shocking attacks on less high-profile women. Amnesty gives the example of the gynaecologist helping the victims of abuse who was targeted because of her work. Her brother was killed and her 11-year-old son was wounded in a grenade attack. A head teacher was targeted because she runs a girls’ school. Her son was abducted and killed, while she continues to receive serious threats.
	Clearly, the progress that has been made on girls’ access to education in Afghanistan is no insignificant achievement, but it risks being undermined. In her excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham spoke about the Taliban conducting a reign of terror against schools. We have heard about several girls’ schools being victims of poisoning and gas attacks last year, and female teachers coming under threat. The 2014 report by Human Rights Watch warned that the perceived “rapidly waning” international interest in Afghanistan is providing opponents of women’s rights with opportunities to roll back advancements. The Afghan independent human rights commission has argued for repeal of the law on ending violence against women. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) mentioned that, as did the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who also spoke of women suffering continued human rights abuses. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian highlighted the plight of young women and girls in jail for so-called moral crimes—a horrible example of how much progress is still to be made.
	Only this year, the Afghan Parliament passed a draft criminal procedure code that would prohibit relatives from giving evidence as witnesses and therefore risked obstructing justice for the victims of domestic violence and forced marriage. That was a subject of international concern and it received a welcome veto from President Karzai. It is critical that the UK plays a leading role in maintaining international attention on and support for Afghanistan, including, specifically and explicitly, advocacy of women’s rights, peace and security.
	The Government have rightly said—I welcome this—that stability and security is their priority for Afghanistan, but the security situation of women cannot be seen as secondary to that. It is very much part of it—it is an integral part of security in Afghanistan. Indeed, UN
	Security Council resolution 1325 and the motion under discussion make clear that women’s participation and security are intrinsic to sustainable peace and security.
	The UK Government have in the past emphasised the need for a multilateral approach, particularly with regard to working with our European Union partners, which was picked up by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon. I hope the Secretary of State will agree that, despite the need to work at an EU level, the UK also needs to show particular leadership through our bilateral strategy, in the hope that other countries will follow suit if we take a lead on the issue.
	The Foreign Secretary has rightly been commended for his efforts to secure global action on sexual violence, as has been said by the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), whom I congratulate on his work as a Foreign Office Minister for two years. The Government definitely have our support for the preventing sexual violence initiative. Although Afghanistan is not a priority country for the initiative, it nevertheless seems that the PSVI’s principles could make a valuable contribution in Afghanistan, not least the emphasis it places on working with human rights defenders and helping survivors. I hope the Secretary of State agrees with that.
	Amnesty International is also calling on the Government to develop a country-specific plan for the protection of human rights defenders in Afghanistan, as recommended by the EU guidelines on human rights defenders and, indeed, the FCO’s best practice guidance. My understanding, though, is that the Government have so far been reluctant to develop a country-specific plan and have claimed it would add little additional value. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could tell us what discussions she has had with EU counterparts about developing country-specific plans, how the UK is pushing for full implementation of the UK guidelines, and why the Government do not think that a UK country- specific plan could help activists in Afghanistan and send a strong message to our international partners.
	It would also be helpful if the Secretary of State could provide more details on the work that DFID, the FCO and the MOD are currently doing with women human rights defenders. In particular, what steps are the UK Government taking to ensure that Afghan human rights defenders are aware of the EU guidelines and the options they have should they be in need of protection? In what way are the Government consulting the human rights defenders themselves, who are best placed to advise on the assistance they need?
	Foreign Governments who work with human rights defenders can raise their profile in Afghanistan, and in many cases women are prepared to take such a risk, but we must be mindful that the most visible women are often the most vulnerable, particularly if the security situation deteriorates further. I would, therefore, like to hear more from the Secretary of State about what measures the FCO has in place to protect those women.
	Members have mentioned political participation and the need for women to be engaged in the future elections, and I hope the Government have taken that on board. Given the international troop withdrawal later this year, I am also keen to hear from the Minister about what training and advice has been provided to the Afghan national security forces and their capacity to protect the status of women and women human rights defenders.
	In conclusion, I congratulate everyone who has taken part in what has been a brief, truncated, but very important debate.

Justine Greening: It is a pleasure to be able to respond to the debate. I would also like to start by paying tribute to the soldier from the 32 Engineer Regiment who lost his life recently. It is a reminder of the huge sacrifice that our armed forces make not only towards keeping our country safe, but, in this case, in helping another country—Afghanistan—develop. I also want to say, on behalf of not only Foreign Office staff, but in particular my own DFID staff who work in Afghanistan, a big thank you to all Members present for their kind words about the work that our civil servants do in Afghanistan. In many respects, it is often forgotten in comparison with the amazing work that our armed forces do, but I meet many of these people and have telecoms with them on a day-to-day basis. They put a huge part of their lives into the service they give to both Departments and I thank them on behalf of the Government.

Bob Stewart: May I reiterate exactly what my right hon. Friend has just said? Soldiers operate in a much more protected area and they can protect themselves with their weapons. Some of the bravest of the brave are the people who work in places such as Kabul and go to villages on their own to look after the people of that country. I am thinking specifically of young men and women from my right hon. Friend’s Department and non-governmental organisations. They are incredibly brave.

Justine Greening: I could not agree more. I very much appreciate those comments and I know they will be appreciated by DFID and Foreign Office staff.
	We have heard many insightful speeches today. Having this debate sends out a message to people, leaders and would-be leaders in Afghanistan about the priority that this Government and this Parliament place on the issue of women’s rights overall, particularly the way in which that relates to Afghanistan. That is absolutely right.
	As many Members have said, Afghanistan has made significant progress over the past decade, but it continues to face considerable challenges. There are huge levels of poverty and after three decades of conflict, girls and women in Afghanistan are among the most marginalised and poorest in the world: just 17% of women are literate; they often have very restricted mobility, as we have heard; they are subject to violence on a routine basis; and in many respects they have very little decision-making power over their own lives. Afghanistan remains one of the hardest and worst countries in the world in which to be a woman.
	As we have heard, no country can develop if it leaves half its population behind. I assure Members that this Government and I are committed to making sure that these girls and women have the chance to build a better future for themselves and for their country.
	As the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) has eloquently pointed out, the situation that many of them face on a day-to-day basis is terrible. She referred to the issue of early enforced marriage, which
	I raised in a speech earlier this week, in which I set out the UK Government’s determination to play a leading role in combating it.
	I have met many of the human rights defenders whom Members have mentioned. They make one feel humble through the work and dangers that they face every single day of their lives and that their families face as a result of their work. They put their lives on the line for their communities and their country. They know that the process of improving human and women’s rights in particular in Afghanistan will take a very long time, yet they are willing to be part of it. We owe it to them to stick with them for the long term, which is precisely what this Government plan to do. I assure the House that our Government will be committed to Afghanistan in the long term. We are going to provide about £180 million in development assistance annually until at least 2017.
	The right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) talked about how his Committee has identified this issue as a priority. I could not agree more. It is one of the reasons why, when I came into this role, I made tackling violence against women a strategic priority for our country programme in Afghanistan. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) referred to the need for the UK to show leadership on this topic, and I agree, which is why the work that DFID carries out in Afghanistan has been elevated to a real priority.
	Let me briefly tell the House the things we are doing. They focus on making sure that Afghan women can not only have choice in employment, but have a voice. Many Members have spoken about the need for and importance of women being part of the political process in Afghanistan, and that is incredibly important. We are supporting the Afghan electoral commission, particularly in its work to ensure that women are signed up for elections, and we are undertaking additional work to help female candidates be part of the electoral process in Afghanistan.
	I assure the House that we will continue to play our role in lobbying the Afghan Government, where necessary, when worrying issues, such as stoning, suddenly come back on to the agenda. I was in Afghanistan when that issue arose again, and I raised it with President Karzai, who quickly assured me that he had no intention of seeing stoning return to Afghanistan.
	The hon. Member for North West Durham quite rightly raised her concerns, which I share, about the recent Afghan criminal procedure code, which seemed to suggest that it would be almost impossible for women to give evidence in court or to bring charges in relation to violence against women. We are very pleased that President Karzai has issued a decree to amend the criminal procedure code, and that it has been returned to Parliament for approval. We, along with our international partners, will closely monitor the situation, because we certainly do not want such provisions. I am pleased that President Karzai is taking action, but such an approach needs to continue in practice.
	I know that you are keen to ensure that we move on to the next debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I want briefly to speak about some of the progress that is being made. We are focusing not just on making sure that women in Afghanistan can be part of the political process, but on the grass-roots Tawanmandi programme, which is all about working with the many human rights defenders on the ground, particularly the community
	groups focused on violence against women in the domestic situation. I had a chance to meet some of those amazing women during my last visit to Afghanistan at the end of last year, and I talked to them about their personal lives, as well as about the work that they are trying to carry out. They had some inspiring stories, but most of all, they were determined to keep going and to keep working in this area, and we will continue to support them in doing so.
	I want briefly to pay tribute to the work done by the Afghan national army. As many Members will know, we have helped it to set up an academy. I can tell the House that, with our help, female trainers are now in place in the academy, and that the first female trainees will join it by June. We will therefore start to see women taking up a role in the security agenda in Afghanistan.
	On the Afghan national police, I met the Minister of the Interior when I was in Afghanistan at the end of last year. We are providing his Department with technical assistance to help it make sure that women can not only join the Afghan national police safely, but have a career in that organisation and steadily move through the ranks. I know that the Interior Ministry recognises that that is a real issue to work on, and I very much welcome the chance for DFID to continue working with it over the coming months and years. At the moment, only 1% of the 157,000 Afghan national police officers are female. If the police force is to be able to police the whole of Afghanistan, its make-up clearly needs to represent Afghanistan more effectively.
	Education has not been mentioned as much as it might have been—this has been a short debate—but it really is an Afghan success story. As we have heard, at the time of the Taliban, virtually no girls were in school in Afghanistan. Well over 2 million girls now go to school, which is up from virtually zero, and the UK Government are playing a major role in making sure that there are the necessary schools, teachers and tools to allow them to stay in school over the coming years.
	We will play our role in making sure that the Afghan Government are held to account for the pledges that they have made to ensure the protection of women’s rights, such as in the Tokyo mutual accountability
	framework. As has been said, the UK will co-chair the first ministerial review of progress against the commitments made in Tokyo.
	We all know that there is a huge amount more to do. Even in the UK, our suffragette movement started in the 1870s, but it took until 1918 for women to get the vote for the first time, which is nearly 50 years. We recognise that the challenges in Afghanistan are absolutely huge, but that does not mean we as a country should not try to meet them or should not be prepared to participate in efforts to improve women’s rights over the long term.
	We will do so by supporting women in having their say at the ballot box; by supporting girls in getting into school; by supporting the work on eliminating violence against girls and women and making sure that that law is implemented on the ground; and, crucially, by supporting Afghanistan’s defenders of human rights and civil society. We can help girls and women in Afghanistan to build a better future for themselves and their country, and we can best ensure that the important gains made in recent years are not lost, but are further built on as Afghanistan moves into its future.

Robert Smith: I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. They have all, in their different ways, sent the message to the women of Afghanistan that we care, we understand and we want to see action to support them. The work of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is translating those words into action. We must keep our focus on this matter and return to it, because we cannot turn our back on what has been achieved to date and leave such a fragile country to fall back.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House recognises, ahead of critical presidential elections in April 2014, the essential contribution of Afghan human rights defenders to building peace and security in their country; further recognises the extreme challenges, including violent attacks and killings, that they face as a result of their peaceful work; believes that sustainable peace and security cannot be achieved in Afghanistan without women’s full participation; and encourages the UK Government to improve its support and protection for women human rights defenders in Afghanistan.

Welsh Affairs

Albert Owen: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered Welsh affairs.
	It is important to have a Welsh debate in the House of Commons. As you will know, Mr Speaker, when one goes into Central Lobby, one is surrounded by four large arches. The arch that leads to the House of Commons has St David on it. It is therefore appropriate that we are having our St David’s day debate in the House of Commons this year.
	Although time is a bit tight, I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. I make a plea to the Government and to their successors—I hope that there is a Government of a different colour in 2015—to reinstate a Welsh affairs debate in Government time, because post-devolution, there are many important matters that Welsh Members wish to debate. Many of those are cross-border issues, many concern reserved powers and many reach us as individual Members of Parliament in our constituency surgeries and when we make visits in the constituency. This is a traditional debate that goes back many decades.
	I believe Wales to be an integral part of the United Kingdom, and I hope that it will remain so for many decades and centuries. I speak in this debate, as will many Members, as a Welsh patriot—an outward-looking Welsh patriot. I make no apology for being pro-Welsh, pro-British and pro-European Union. Above all, I am pro-Anglesey. I am proud to represent the island community of Ynys Môn, the mother of Wales, in this, the mother of all Parliaments. I see no contradiction in being pro-Welsh, pro-British and pro-European Union. I feel no less Welsh by being pro-United Kingdom and no less British by being pro-European Union.
	It is in that context that I want to make my opening remarks, particularly as this Parliament has been preoccupied with separation and divorce. I am speaking, of course, of the Scottish debate about independence, which has been pushed by the nationalist agenda. I am also speaking about the separatists on the Conservative Back Benches, who have been pushing for exit from the European Union. Indeed, they are the tail that has wagged the Conservative dog throughout most of this Parliament, with the Prime Minister trying to steer a very—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) want to intervene? He is making remarks from a sedentary position.
	I accept that those are legitimate debates to have in this House and in this democratic society. Nevertheless, I believe, as I am sure do many Members, that those debates are causing instability in the United Kingdom and in the European Union. I believe that to be bad for business and bad for our economies, whether local, regional or national. We heard just today that businesses in Scotland are concerned about the instability that is being caused by those debates and the movements towards separation and divorce.
	The head of Shell has warned quite clearly that the talk of separation is causing a lack of the stability and clarity that businesses need in order to invest. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) says “Dutch” from a sedentary
	position. I worked as a British merchant seaman and many people from Wales work on British vessels. We are proud to serve under the red ensign as British seamen, bringing many pounds to the local economies throughout Wales.

Jonathan Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House what the credit agency Standard & Poor’s recently said about the finances of an independent Scotland, and about its take on the current finances of the British state?

Albert Owen: I will make my own speech. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make such points—[Interruption.] He can laugh, but I do not speak for the Scottish National party, and I certainly do not speak with a nationalist agenda. That is the point I am making, and I will make my own speech in my own way. The hon. Gentleman prompts me, however, to mention local independent polls from Wales and the United Kingdom, which claim that some 5% of the population of Wales want an independent Wales, and separation and divorce from the United Kingdom. The question was asked because of Scottish independence, and I accept that the figure rises to 7% if Scotland were to have independence. I make that remark because I feel it is important for the 95% who want to remain in the United Kingdom to have their voices raised in this House in a proud and co-operative way.

Hywel Williams: While the hon. Gentleman is on the subject, what credence does he give to the views of a superannuated, tax-dodging rock star from, I think, New York these days, on the Scottish question?

Albert Owen: I do not know who the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but when I speak to chief executive officers of international companies, they say in private that they want stability in the United Kingdom so that they can invest in it—in all parts of it. I referred to the European Union and I am consistent on this issue. Businesses have been telling me in public, in private, and in Select Committees, that they want stability to make those huge investments to help the economies of the United Kingdom.

Mark Tami: A successful Welsh business such as Airbus really shows how European partnership can work. If we were outside the European Union, does my hon. Friend think we would get the investment, or would those jobs be at threat?

Albert Owen: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and he puts the issue to bed. We are not just talking about foreign individuals who may be chief executives of companies; we are talking about skilled, well-paid jobs and investment that will boost the economies of Deeside, Bristol and other parts of the United Kingdom. Business leaders at events with Airbus that I have attended have been clear that they are investing in Europe. That is why they want to invest in the United Kingdom, and they choose Deeside because it has an excellent skilled work force. I want that to continue and for many other parts of Wales and the United Kingdom to benefit from that as well.
	The Welsh dimension to the constitutional debate in this Parliament has concentrated on the Silk commission, but I am being honest with hon. Members when I say
	that not one constituent has raised that with me as an important or pertinent issue for them. They do, however, raise important issues about public services and the cost of living, and they talk about international affairs—we had an excellent debate on women in Afghanistan today. People send us here to talk about real issues that affect them.
	I speak as a proud pro-devolutionist and I supported devolution in 1979. Many fellow travellers have come along since that time, including the Labour party. To me, however, real devolution is about empowering people throughout our country. It is not about the simple transfer of powers from one institution in Whitehall to another in Cardiff Bay; to me it is about empowering people in Cemaes bay in my constituency, and in Colwyn bay, Cardigan bay, and many other parts of Wales. It is not just about the boring constitutional issues that we, the political elite, are bogged down with and a few commentators are talking about.
	I want to talk about the real issue of developing a stable and growing economy in Wales as part of the United Kingdom and the European Union, and I will mention two things that affect businesses and people in my constituency: energy and tourism.
	On energy, I very much welcome the fact that we are getting a consensus on the big energy issues, for reasons that I gave earlier including the stability that businesses crave so that they can make huge investments in the future. I welcome the Secretary of State’s support for Wylfa Newydd and his conversion to offshore wind. I shall put this mildly because I want the consensus to continue, but when the Secretary of State worked alongside me on the Welsh Affairs Committee I recall him being concerned about the consents under the previous Government. He now backs those schemes and even claims credit for them as the flagship of the coalition Government.

David Jones: I can actually see the Gwynt y Môr wind farm from my sitting room, so I can recognise a fact of life.

Albert Owen: I take that point, and the Secretary of State may now find that an attractive view from his window, but at one time he did not want it to go ahead. He would not have been able to see it from his window, nor would he have been able to meet many of the targets that we are making progress towards in a low-carbon economy. I have always thought that offshore wind has a great future, although I am a little less certain about onshore wind, because of the sheer size of some of the turbines.

David Davies: Given that offshore wind normally needs a strike price of about £150 per megawatt-hour, is the hon. Gentleman as happy to argue that people should be willing to pay more for their electricity as he is to argue for those wind farms to be built?

Albert Owen: We need a mix. We need a base load and we need variable energy. If we do not have interconnectors and we are producing too much energy in the summer, when peak demand is less, we cannot switch off nuclear
	power stations and it is expensive to switch off gas. It is easier to switch off variable supplies such as renewables can provide, including wind. There is an initial cost, but those costs are coming down, and I believe that with economies of scale—as with the strike price for nuclear or for any other renewable—the price will decrease as the sector matures. In the long term, bills will be cheaper if we get a steady supply of low carbon energy.
	Nuclear power is also part of the mix. I welcome the conversion of the Secretary of State to wind power and the conversion of the Liberal Democrats to nuclear power. I hope that that means that the three larger parties, two of which form the Government now and one of which I hope will form the next Government, will be consistent in the future.

David Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman be able to inform the House of the position of Plaid Cymru in his constituency on nuclear power?

Albert Owen: It is up to Plaid Cymru to defend itself. As I have been provoked into raising the issue, I will say that it is important that all the larger parties here and the larger parties in the Assembly—of which Plaid Cymru is one—show their support. In my opinion, a party cannot claim to be in full support of a technology if its leader says that she wants an energy future without nuclear power. The leader of a party cannot say that to business leaders and then say that she supports the jobs. We need to support the development of the technology. On Plaid Cymru’s website, which I get little notes about occasionally, the energy spokesperson says that it wants 100% renewable energy by 2035—there is no mention of nuclear. That is a clear indication that Plaid Cymru opposes nuclear as part of the energy mix in the future. That will be an issue for the general election as we make progress on the building of Wylfa Newydd. I hope that that answers the Secretary of State’s intervention.

Hywel Williams: Tag team!

Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman says, “Tag team!”, and I will come to that issue in a moment.
	Yesterday, I and other Members of Parliament held an event on Britain’s nuclear future. None of the Plaid Cymru Members came, but it was attended by apprentices and graduates from Wales, who have jobs on the Wylfa site. The Welsh Government, the local authority and the UK Government have put aside moneys to train young people, giving them the opportunity to have a quality job. This policy, which is supported by parties in this House, will enhance local economies. It will benefit my area socially and culturally, as it has done for some 40 years.

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is always kind when somebody seeks to intervene. Energy is a contentious issue, and there are divisions within all parties on every aspect of energy policy. For instance, how would he be responding if the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was in his place this afternoon?

Albert Owen: My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and I do not agree on nuclear power, but I will tell the hon. Gentleman who does agree: the Labour leader in the authority in my constituency, the Labour First
	Minister of Wales and the Leader of the Opposition, who was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. The Labour party has continuity, with party leaders proudly saying what its policy is. The leader of Plaid Cymru does not support this policy, but expects the people in my area to vote for it, which is disingenuous and wrong. Energy is a big issue in general election campaigns. Of course there are individuals, but we expect leaders to provide leadership and clarity not just for the country but for investment.
	The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) has come in and is speaking rather loudly. Does he want to intervene?

Angus MacNeil: I was not planning to intervene, but I understand that Labour has some difficulty regarding further powers for Wales. The Scottish Parliament is not very powerful. Why would the hon. Gentleman not want the Welsh Assembly to be at least as powerful as the Scottish Parliament is today?

Albert Owen: I have made no comment on that. The hon. Gentleman does not understand that I have been supporting devolution since 1979. I believe in a devolved Administration, but the issue is not about more powers. If he had been in the Chamber earlier, he would have heard me say that people do not raise the issue of more powers with me as a constituency MP.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Albert Owen: I am not giving way again, because the hon. Gentleman was not here earlier. He was speaking loudly and that is why I let him intervene, but I need to finish my remarks. If he had been in earlier, he would have heard exactly what I said.
	As a pro-devolutionist who goes further than my party on many issues—[Interruption.] A pro-devolutionist is someone who believes that powers should be devolved not just to Administrations, such as those in Edinburgh or Cardiff, but to the people in their local area. I do not believe that many people want independence. That is what the polls tell me. I think we will move towards the Scottish Parliament model when the people of Wales require it, and I will be arguing for those powers at that time. The powers that people want now are economic: they want to improve their cost of living. That is the debate we had when the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar was not here.
	On energy, we need continuity. The young people I met yesterday are Britain’s future. They are Wales’s future and they are my constituency’s future, too. They will get high-paid, quality jobs by working in the nuclear industry. They are the model young Welsh Europeans of the future and they want a stake in that future. They are proud to be Welsh. One of them is going to Twickenham on Sunday, where he will be supporting the Welsh team in its efforts to regain the Six Nations championship. They are proud Welsh people who are proud to be part of the United Kingdom. That is who I meet on a day-to-day basis, and that is who I have come here to represent.
	North Wales MPs met Centrica this week, which will be making a substantial investment in offshore wind. We need to encourage that. I make a plea to the Secretary
	of State that, along with north Wales MPs, he makes the strong argument that the benefits go not to other parts of the United Kingdom, but to close by north Wales. We have the port facilities and the skilled labour force to retain thousands of quality jobs in our region and it is very important that we do so. The port of Holyhead needs investment, but unfortunately Stena is concentrating on the wrong things. It is talking about cutting the wages and conditions of crews when it should be investing in the port so that it can fulfil its potential and secure the extra business that will create thousands of quality jobs in the future. I hope that the Secretary of State will meet me so that we can speak with one voice on that issue.
	I want to say a little about tourism. Wales as a product is of an international standard, but we are competing against the rest of the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe. Let me again issue a plea to the Secretary of State and the Government. Our near neighbours, the Republic of Ireland and France, have cut the rate of value added tax to boost and stimulate the economy—

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Albert Owen: No, I will not give way again.
	Ireland and France have done that for a very good reason: they have done it because business has been asking them to do it. There is no reason why any part of the United Kingdom could not benefit from a cut in VAT. An application could be made to reduce it, and that would stimulate the economy.

Hywel Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Albert Owen: I will give way once more, but that will be the final intervention, because I am conscious of the time.

Hywel Williams: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that VAT on tourism should be reduced, as indeed should VAT on building, renovations and repairs. In 2008, ECOFIN decided to allow countries to reduce VAT to 5%. What did the Labour Government do about that from 2008 onwards?

Albert Owen: No request was made to me. If it had been, I would have lobbied for such a reduction. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. However, I have found—and I am sure that he will agree with me about this—that the hike in VAT to 20% has had a negative effect on spending in many areas. Local businesses tell me that. Do not listen to what I am saying; listen to them. There is a good campaign across the United Kingdom for a cut in VAT on tourism.
	One leading business person told me that whenever he takes his partner, son-in-law and daughter out for a drink, he has to take the Chancellor of the Exchequer with him, because 20% of the bill goes to the Treasury. That cannot be right. Other European Union member states are enjoying a VAT reduction, and have benefited from hundreds of thousands of extra jobs and from investment in tourism.

Alun Cairns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Albert Owen: I will, but this really will be the last intervention, because, as I have said, I am conscious of the time.

Alun Cairns: Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that cutting the VAT paid by tourist businesses to 5% is Labour party policy?

Albert Owen: I am not going to take a lecture from someone who voted for it to be raised to 20%. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can flap their hands as much as they want—

Angus MacNeil: Labour abstained.

Albert Owen: I certainly did not abstain on any vote on this. I have been in favour of reducing VAT. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) may smirk, but businesses in his constituency have contacted me about this very issue. Either he wants to make knockabout party points, or he wants to stand up for businesses in his area. Unlike him, I voted against raising VAT, because I believe that it is a regressive tax which cuts business investment. When the Government talk about reducing taxes, they forget that they have hiked up value added tax. It is the businesses of this country that are raising that issue with me, which is why I think it legitimate for me to raise it here today.
	I want people to come to Wales to work, to live and to visit. I want home-grown businesses to grow and flourish, welcoming the investment that we receive from the rest of the United Kingdom, the rest of the European Union and the rest of the world. I want Wales to become the place in which to do business. I want it to be a destination, and I want its young people to flourish in the future. That will happen if we are pro-Welsh economy, pro-Britain, pro-Europe and pro-business.

David Davies: I agreed with many of the things the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said, although I disagreed in certain important respects. I agree that of course it is possible to be proud to be Welsh, proud to be British and at the same time proud to be European, but when I say I am proud to be European, I mean I am proud to be part of the Europe that gave us the renaissance and the enlightenment values that have spread democracy over all the world and which people across the world look up to—[Interruption.] Yes, even if they do not seem to be following them in some parts of the world. What I am not proud of, however, is the European Union, because that is an entirely artificial construct which is completely undemocratic and, in the manner in which it goes about its business, is going against the values that Europe has given us over many hundreds of years. But I am, of course, proud to be Welsh and proud to be British.
	Being proud to be Welsh does not mean having to give absolute support to the Welsh Assembly and to support giving it extra powers every couple of years, which is what seems to be happening at the moment. I sometimes wish I was as good at being able to predict the movement of the stock market as I am at being able to predict what is going to happen whenever somebody sets up a body to look at giving more powers to the Welsh Assembly. As I made clear in a Welsh Affairs
	Committee meeting, it was obvious from the start—before Mr Silk, who I admire personally, although I suspect I disagree with him politically on many things, traversed Wales, speaking at empty village halls the length and breadth of the nation—what was going to happen: at the end of the process, Mr Silk was simply going to recommend giving yet another tranche of powers to the Welsh Assembly, which is exactly what has happened.

Angus MacNeil: Does the hon. Gentleman see any benefit for the Welsh tourism industry if the Welsh Assembly or a Parliament in Wales had powers over VAT? Could it cut VAT to compete with independent nations such as Ireland or France, which were cited by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen)? Is it not bizarre to complain about something and then not want the power to do anything about it?

David Davies: No, I think that, as people on different sides of the political fence recognise, great difficulties would be caused if, in an area where most people live along the border, one side cut VAT while the other kept it at the original level. That differential would create enormous economic problems. What I would be interested in doing is looking at the economic case for a cut in VAT for tourism across the whole of the United Kingdom, or at least across all those bits that wish to remain in the United Kingdom, and retain the benefits that come from that.
	When we consider what the Assembly has actually managed to achieve, we should be very cautious about giving it further powers, particularly over policing, which is what is being discussed as a result of Silk 2. Let us consider the areas where the Welsh Assembly already has complete powers, such as inward investment. Inward investment has been a disaster over the years since the Assembly was set up. We went from being one of the most successful regions of the United Kingdom in attracting foreign inward investment to being the second lowest region. There are a number of reasons for that, many of which we heard when the Select Committee investigated this issue. We heard stories about people who were set up in so-called embassies in other parts of the world but could not even speak the language of the country they were supposed to be selling Wales to, and people who were not seen or heard of. We heard stories from Brussels that, while Scotland—to be fair—and Yorkshire and other regions of the United Kingdom had been very successful in raising their profile, nobody had ever heard of anyone from Wales. At the same time we have had problems with education, which is an important factor when companies decide where to locate. I believe there is also an issue with energy, which the hon. Member for Ynys Môn also mentioned and which I shall come back to shortly. Certainly, however, the record on inward investment has been a complete and utter disaster.
	Education is now a story not just for the Welsh papers, but for the national papers. The PISA—programme for international student assessment—results were a disaster for those of us who have children in the state education system, as I do, and I went through it myself in Wales in the 1980s. The latest GCSE results for English came out today. I quickly looked at them on the BBC website and apparently they are much worse than expected, although the Welsh Assembly is once again quick to try to distance itself from the poor results.
	I believe there is a particular problem, which was summed up by Lee Waters. He worked, I believe, for a number of Labour Ministers in the Welsh Assembly. He is a man of many qualities, but not voting Conservative is not one of them; it is a shame that he does not. He hit the nail on the head today in an article in The Times when he wrote about the fact that the Welsh Assembly was deliberately trying to do things differently in areas where it had the power just because it could—not because it could do a better job, but simply to try to show that it was not going to follow what England does.
	Ministers might not like me saying this, but if we compare what has gone on in England with what has gone on in Wales, we can see that the English education reforms have simply built on the reforms that Tony Blair put in place but was unable to carry out. I read his memoirs with great interest, and I was struck by the way in which his health and education policies were reflected almost exactly in the policies that were in the Conservative manifesto. It is therefore quite bizarre that Labour subsequently attacked our policies so vigorously, given that the ideas came from Labour itself.

Hywel Williams: What does the hon. Gentleman make of this week’s press reports that Labour will, if it ever gets back into government, adopt the reforms that are being promoted for England by the Secretary of State for Education?

David Davies: I very much welcome that, of course. It is not particularly surprising, however, because reforms such as the introduction of academies, the use of the private sector and the better use of inspections were all being suggested by Tony Blair. He started to implement them under Andrew Adonis but, for one reason or another, was unable to complete them. It is not in the least bit surprising that Labour Members now recognise that we have built on their reforms, and extended and widened them a little. Why would they want to go back on them? The problem is that we have two Labour parties in the United Kingdom. In England, we have a sort of new Labour, which to some extent recognises the need to deal with business and the private sector, if only so that it can get taxes off them in order to spend them. In Wales, we have a kind of old Labour, red in tooth and claw, that still has not woken up to the fact that the 1970s finished about 40 years ago.

Chris Evans: rose—

David Davies: I would be delighted to give way to a true representative of old Labour.

Chris Evans: What can I say to that? Does the hon. Gentleman not also believe that there are two Conservative parties, judging by the comments and actions of the leader of the Conservative party in the Welsh Assembly?

David Davies: There are certainly differences. I will speak for myself, and others may follow. I think I am right in offering my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman. Has he recently had a child? He is looking a bit worried—perhaps it was someone further along the Opposition Benches. [Interruption.] I am told that it was actually the hon. Member for Carmarthen East
	and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). My congratulations to him. He, too, will no doubt be experiencing the state education sector in Wales shortly.
	My recommendation is that we look at what has gone wrong in that sector. There are not enough schools inspections, and far too much notice is given of those that are taking place. That practice has been done away with in England. I worked with the police for many years, as Members know. We could not have a situation in which a policy custody unit was told weeks in advance that it was going to be inspected; people just turned up and did it. That is how it should be with schools, and with hospitals. That is not what is happening in Wales, however.
	I have been told by head teachers, and by schools improvement officers, that it is difficult for people to go in and assess how a teacher is doing in a classroom because the unions do not like it. Similarly, the unions do not like league tests, or testing of any other sort, and they are making it very difficult for people to go in and make the kind of changes that are required.

Mark Williams: I spent 12 years working in the classroom, and I am still a paid-up member of a teaching trade union. My experience of the unions is that they were certainly not obstacles to the inspection regime. I want to probe the hon. Gentleman a little further on the question of education in Wales. What does he see as the main explanation for those PISA results, and for the failings in English literacy and mathematics in particular? Will he tell us what the main failings are that he has identified, rather than giving us the kind of jargon that he was articulating just now?

David Davies: I do not think that I was using jargon; I was spelling it out in fairly simple English. But okay, I will give the hon. Gentleman a list of things. First, I am told that it is difficult for head teachers to go in and assess teachers. They are allowed to do it only a couple of times a year, and they cannot simply walk into a classroom. I have been told that by two senior educationists in Wales, working in totally separate schools, over the past few weeks. Either they are wrong or the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
	I have also been told that schools get a great deal of notice before an inspection takes place, and I think that is wrong. Inspectors ought to be able to go in without any notice whatsoever and find out what is going wrong. I know for a fact that when I was in the Welsh Assembly the unions and everyone else seemed to be totally against testing, but testing is a good thing. If my children are failing in tests, I want to know about it and to get involved. There is also a problem with sickness, whereby too many teachers are taking too many sick days in schools in Wales and that is not being properly investigated afterwards by the personnel departments. It is also far too difficult to get rid of bad teachers who are not up to the job. That situation can occur in any walk of life, but in most others someone who is not up to a job will be got rid of by someone higher up. That does not seem to happen in teaching. I do not think all that is jargon; those are fairly simple matters.
	May I make one last point on this, which is the most important one of all? In England, there is a recognition that parents have a right to have some say over their children’s education, and they can exercise that most
	drastically by taking their children out of the state system and putting them into some kind of an academy. As a parent, I welcome that, because it is my taxpayer’s money that is being spent and I ought to have a say. If the school is not up to the job, I ought to have the right to take my child out and put them somewhere else. I do not have that right in Wales, and that is taking away an incentive for teachers to improve.

Alun Cairns: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, which is interesting in terms of the direction that the questions are coming from. Does he share my concern that the hands of the Liberal Democrats, and even those of Plaid Cymru, are not necessarily clean in this area, because they will have been part of the coalition during some of the formative years, when some of the education policies were put in place?

David Davies: My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. The Labour party has generally been the lead party in the Assembly since it was set up, but at other times Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats have been involved.

Mark Williams: I respect the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman makes those remarks, but I spent 12 years in the classroom and no head teacher was ever prevented from inspecting any lessons I undertook. Does he think that he could add to his list the issue of resources? Our Government have addressed that in part through the pupil premium, and Liberals in Wales, along with Labour colleagues, have pursued a similar policy there. That has been a good measure. Resources are important, but so, too, is maintaining properly motivated and confident staff. One challenge to this Government in Westminster is to retain that well-motivated staff, because the jury is out so far on that.

David Davies: I am grateful to my friend—I am not sure whether he is an hon. Friend, a colleague or what under this coalition, but he is that—for the compliment. I agree that both those matters are important. On resources, the Government have rightly made cuts to all sorts of departments, except to foreign aid; I could launch into another speech on that, but will not do so. Generally speaking, the Government have had to make cuts—we have done so rightly—to try to balance the books, but we have not cut money to the Welsh Assembly. The amount of money that it has had overall has increased slightly, although people there will try to argue that when inflation is factored in it is not quite as much as it once was. So that is certainly not an issue that can be laid at the door of either of us in this coalition Government. Of course I completely agree that it is important that staff are motivated, and I would regret it if anything were ever done to stop that happening, but there is a difference between de-motivating people and allowing them to get away with things.
	May I just move on to health, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it is the other big area of which the Welsh Assembly has control?

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Gentleman may certainly move on to health and to his other subjects, but I am sure he must be
	considering the fact that he has spoken for some time and that many other Members wish to speak. I do not suggest that he stops immediately, but he might like possibly to accelerate his next few points.

David Davies: I would certainly not want to deprive the House of the wisdom of hearing from anyone else from the Principality, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I wonder whether there is some way you could indicate to me how much longer you think I should detain the House for.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman will get the feeling of the House as he progresses. Another few minutes would be fine.

David Davies: I will try to be brief. I do not even need to say too much about health, because much of it has been said by Labour Members who have been affected. Suffice it to say, a member of my own family has been very badly affected by the second-rate service that we are getting in Wales. In England, people requiring cataract treatment can expect to be seen in 18 weeks. In Wales, it is 36 weeks, so people have to wait for twice as long. The Welsh Assembly are failing to meet even their own poor targets. When I last checked, some 300 people had been waiting more than 36 weeks for cataract treatment, which could easily lead to people going blind. That is an absolute disgrace.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman needs to make the distinction. Surely he means not the Welsh Assembly but the Government. If there are health or other issues in the UK, it is the responsibility not of the Parliament but of the Government of the particular Parliament or Assembly.

David Davies: That is certainly true, and a variety of parties have been in government and should take responsibility, but the Conservative party is not one of them. The Conservative Government in London have overall responsibility for the economy, which affects Wales, and have done a superb job in cutting the deficit, dealing with the way in which benefits were being handed out to one and all, and getting people back into work. That is something of which we can be enormously proud.
	We need to look at issues such as the Severn bridge, which was debated yesterday. I thank the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) for making such important points on which there could be cross-party agreement in Wales. Something needs to be done about the tolls, and it needs to happen as soon as the concession ends.
	Finally, to go back to the points made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn, we all agree that manufacturing and developing our manufacturing industry are important, but I disagree that that can be done by an overuse of renewable energy, which actually leads to higher overall energy costs. One of the things that manufacturers need now is low energy costs. America, for example, which has halved its energy prices, is seeing manufacturers coming back from places such as the far east. I hope the Government will think carefully about swallowing any more of the green propaganda, which has led to a demise in manufacturing in Wales and elsewhere.
	Overall, we have a great deal of which we can be proud. The Labour leader has said that he wishes to learn lessons from Wales. The lesson is that if a person votes Labour in Wales, they will get longer waiting lists, their children will not get as good an education and they can forget about inward investment. If that is the lesson that he wants to shout out to everyone in the run-up to the election, I wish him every success.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The House will be aware that there are a great many Members who wish to speak this afternoon and a limited amount of time in which they can do so. I therefore have to impose a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of seven minutes.

Paul Murphy: That ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, necessary as it is, shows how truncated what used to be the great St David’s day debate, which has been held in this House since 1944, has become. It has been reduced to an hour and a half with seven-minute limits at the tail end of a Thursday. Of course it is not St David’s day today. It is the feast day of St Colette of France, a well-known mediaeval saint and, among other things, the patron saint of pregnant women.
	I want to talk not about pregnant women but about a serious matter that is becoming a scourge in Wales, in my constituency and across the United Kingdom. I refer to the absolutely inappropriately misnamed legal highs. I have no doubt that there are many Members who have some knowledge about the people who sell such substances to our constituents. In my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), we have suffered the scourge of legal high shops, or head shops. There is one in Pontnewydd in Cwmbran and one in Newport.
	Since the shops have opened, there has been an increase in the number of youngsters between the ages of 14 and 17 affected by these particular drugs, according to the accident and emergency department at the Royal Gwent hospital. Between 2012 and 2013, the Gwent drug interventions programme in Cwmbran tested 500 people in police custody for legal highs, 70% of whom came back positive. In an attempt to deal with those serious issues, the two shops were raided last October. Five people were arrested and 58 different substances were seized and sent for testing. The shops were temporarily closed, but they are now back, and another one has opened on Osbourne road in Pontypool, further up the valley in my constituency.
	We can look at the websites of these dreadful places, as young people undoubtedly do. This is just one example. The owners of the shop ask the question, “What are legal highs?” and the site states that they
	“are substances made from assorted herbs, herbal extracts and ‘research chemicals’. They produce the same, or similar effects, to drugs such as cocaine and ecstasy, but are not controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act. They are however, considered illegal under current medicines legislation to sell, supply or advertise for ‘human consumption’. To get round this sellers” –
	that is, the owners of the shop themselves –
	“refer to them as research chemicals, plant food, bath crystals or pond cleaner.”
	The site concedes that the effects of these so-called legal highs are no different from the effects of those that are illegal.
	One product called “Exodus Damnation”, which is currently advertised on the shop’s website, was the cause of a near fatal heart attack suffered by 17-year-old Matt Ford in Canterbury. In Pontypool in my constituency, 176 people signed a petition saying that the shop should not be opened. Their views were strongly expressed to the police and local authorities, all of whom could do absolutely nothing. It is simply not right that our councils, our police forces and our law enforcement agencies can do virtually nothing to stop such shops opening and poisoning hundreds and thousands of young Welsh people with these appalling so-called highs.

Jessica Morden: My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on an important subject. Does he also agree that the long-term health implications of the substances that some young people are taking should also make us extremely worried? We do not know what is in them and that could lead to serious problems in the future.

Paul Murphy: Indeed, we do not know that. People have been temporarily blinded by such substances and have had large lumps come out on their bodies, and it could be that in the long term they will suffer even greater illnesses.
	One of these groups of shops, called Chill South Wales, has a Facebook page on which it promotes its products. The most recent post is an image of four children’s cartoon characters with a range of drugs paraphernalia. We have looked at the list of 394 Facebook friends; many of them are still at school and some are as young as 12. Those young people have no idea what they are taking and no way of knowing the possible dangers or the long-term health risks. These products are just as dangerous as illegal drugs, if not more so as people unwittingly think that they are safe because they are legal and are being sold on our high streets. That could not be further from the truth.
	To be fair, I think the Government are doing what they can by using temporary class drug orders to ban substances as they come along, but it is a game of catch-up: as soon as one substance is banned, another appears in the marketplace. More than 250 substances have been banned, but more are appearing at a rate of one a week.
	The Home Office review is to be welcomed.

Hywel Williams: As a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, I visited a forensic lab just outside London and was shown a selection of the drugs that had been confiscated in the few weeks before our visit. The system is now privatised and those I spoke to reported that they found it very difficult to keep up with the novel substances as they were imported, mainly from China. Is the right hon. Gentleman content that the Government are putting enough money into the forensic service to keep up with these novel drugs?

Paul Murphy: I certainly think that many more resources need to be put into this and we should use all available avenues to alert and warn our young people of the dangers of these drugs. Our schools, colleges, education
	services and local authorities must do all they can to let people know how terrible, dangerous and toxic these drugs are.
	We must certainly consider giving local authorities special powers to close down the shops and I think that we should legislate to do so. Perhaps we could adopt the model they have in New Zealand, where the onus is on suppliers to prove that the substances are safe. A lot more thought must go into this.
	Today’s debate is, of course, about Wales, and this is an ideal opportunity for the UK Government and the Welsh Government to work together, as they have different responsibilities but the same aim of trying to deal with these terrible things. I have worked with my local Assembly Member, Lynne Neagle, on this matter. I believe that there is a case for the Secretary of State or the Minister to contact their counterparts in Cardiff Bay to see whether we can tackle this appalling abuse. One great advantage of a Welsh affairs debate is that we can raise such issues on the Floor of the House of Commons, which since devolution has not been quite so easy to do. I am sure that our constituents do not see the distinction when it comes to the Welsh Government being in charge of health and the United Kingdom Government being in charge of criminal justice. Both Governments need to ensure that we deal with this terrible plague affecting our young people in Wales.

Glyn Davies: For me, as the MP for Montgomeryshire, there is no more enjoyable political experience than speaking in this Chamber in a Welsh affairs debate linked to St David’s day. In fact, I have moved from my usual place on the back row because I wanted to make my speech as close as I am ever likely to be to the seat from which Lord Roberts spoke—his attitude to Welsh affairs was very similar to mine—and indeed from which spoke the most extraordinary Welsh politician of the last century, David Lloyd George. He led a Conservative-Liberal coalition a very long time ago. I enjoy visiting his museum. I promise not to indulge in the kinds of rhetorical flourishes he used when speaking in the House.

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman interests the House with his reference to Lloyd George and the coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberals. He will, of course, remember what happened to the Liberal party after that coalition fell.

Glyn Davies: I am hoping to make a speech without any sour notes, if possible.
	My main political interest over recent decades has been the interests of Wales. I am unashamedly a Welsh politician. For many years I was involved in developing the Welsh economy—a new economy for Wales after the devastation of the beginning of the last century—by working with the Welsh Development Agency, the Welsh Tourist Board and the Development Board for Rural Wales. Through the late ’80s and early ’90s, those organisations did a magnificent job in developing the Welsh economy. I think that they were wound up too soon. Clearly, all quangos are wound up in the end, but
	I think they were wound up before the job was done, a decision that was taken, I believe, on the basis of prejudice, rather than evidence.
	I am intensely proud of being a Welshman. It influences my politics in virtually everything I do in this Chamber. I simply do not accept that to be independently minded, to be culturally and linguistically proud, to be emotionally linked to our Welsh history and to be aware of our distinctive nationhood should ever be the preserve of Welsh nationalists, of Plaid Cymru. It is, and must always be, a part of Conservative philosophy.
	There are a million issues I could speak about, but I will touch on just a few. The first is an economic view from rural mid-Wales, where I live. We know that Wales is not a coherent geographical unit. Economically, north Wales is always linked to the north-west of England, mid-Wales is linked to the midlands and south Wales is linked to the M4 corridor. I think that we should challenge the judgment of investing in links between north and south Wales, and not just on the basis of economic benefit, but on the cost-benefit analysis. During my years in the National Assembly, I always thought that there was an element of wanting to develop Wales as a geographical region, rather than just looking at the cost, as with the A470 and the A483. I think that is a real objective, because developing Wales as a coherent unit is important in itself.
	Mid-Wales warrants much better treatment that it receives from the Welsh Government, and this is a long-term issue. Wales has an area in the middle between north Wales and south Wales, and it has always been a battle to develop the same awareness of mid-Wales as of the other two areas. We must focus on mid-Wales so that it brings the other two areas closer together. I have always thought there was a case for more investment in mid-Wales to create a unified Wales rather than just for the benefit of individual projects.
	Mid-Wales is not just an area to put wind farms—they do not bring much economic benefit to the local economy—and which can then be forgotten in terms of industrial development. Given some political views—certainly not mine—in Wales, that is a danger, and we should challenge it.

Roger Williams: My hon. Friend and I worked together on the Development Board for Rural Wales. In Newtown and Welshpool, where investment was focused, there is a residue of manufacturing, as there is in Brecon. Would such investment not bring great benefit to rural mid-Wales again?

Glyn Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. We worked together on the sort of development that not just transformed mid-Wales, but brought north and south Wales closer together. That is a point I wanted to make in this debate.
	Wales should be developed not just as an economic unit, because it is important to develop it as a political entity. That has probably always happened throughout history, but it has certainly gathered pace in recent decades. The Secretary of State has taken delivery of the Silk commission’s report, which came in two parts. There will be other opportunities to talk about it, but it makes two particularly important recommendations.
	The first part of the report recommends that significant income tax powers should be devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. When the commission was set up, its main purpose in my opinion, and I think in the Government’s opinion, was to give the Assembly financial accountability so that decisions were made on raising money and spending it. The debate would then be the same as in every other democratic body imaginable and include raising money. Unless they accept that responsibility for raising the money they spend, the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly will not become a real governing body or a proper Parliament. That is hugely important.

Angus MacNeil: Surely an issue that is allied to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about tax-raising powers is nurturing and growing the economy. I would argue further that the Republic of Ireland was behind Wales economically 100 years ago, but it has leapfrogged Wales and Scotland. The reason for that is that the Republic of Ireland had the power not just to tax and spend, but to see which parts of its economy it wanted to nurture and grow. Wales will not be able to do that until it has powers equivalent to those in the Isle of Man, the Republic of Ireland, Denmark and so on. Essentially, it needs to power to be at the helm and to make its own decisions for its own people.

Glyn Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I want the Welsh Government to become a proper Government with sharp debate so that debates about the budget engage Welsh people. They would take much more interest in a Welsh Government with tax-raising powers.
	The First Minister of Wales has put some blocks in the way, but I sense that after the result of the Scottish referendum those blocks may be resolved. There are three parties in Wales that are generally supportive of this principle, but Labour seems instinctively not to be. I do not know what the shadow Secretary of State’s view is, but I suspect that he is not greatly in favour of devolving income tax powers to the Assembly because of the responsibility it carries. I would plead with him to change his opinion. Let us see devolution develop as it should. This is the next obvious step in the process of devolution, and we must get a grip on that.
	In my last 36 seconds—I would like to have had 20 minutes—I want to touch on a cross-border issue that I have raised before. We have to stop devolution damaging the interests of Wales. We talk about education and health, but the issue that is particularly relevant to me is the cross-border road schemes that would go ahead without devolution but are now unable to go ahead because England is not willing to commit money to its half of such schemes as there is no economic benefit for it. We have to develop a relationship with the Department for Transport to stop that damaging Wales, as it currently does.

Jessica Morden: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) for the opportunity to debate Welsh affairs today. I want to raise two issues relating to employment in my constituency.
	However, let me begin by strongly agreeing with the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) on the problem of legal
	highs, particularly in Gwent. That issue very much came home to me on Sunday, when I was with my kids in a corner of a park in Newport and saw dozens and dozens of empty legal-high packets of all shapes, sizes and colours, with enticing graphics on the front. As in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, premises in Newport were closed down; I believe they were part of the same operation. As a result, I went to a briefing by the team in Gwent police who are dealing with this issue and working extremely hard on it with the local authorities. When the Home Secretary came into post, she promised swift action on legal highs. However, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, it is an extremely difficult issue involving hundreds of different substances and thousands of different sellers. The legislation is out of date and we are playing catch-up. We need to give local authorities and the police the tools to do the job, not least because people have absolutely no idea what they taking, and we are very much storing up health problems for the future.
	I want to talk about the economy in Newport. In recent times, we have heard much from the Government and their Welsh team about how things are improving in Wales, with the recovery under way and things getting easier. Of course, I welcome falls in unemployment in my constituency, although youth unemployment remains unacceptably high, but beneath those figures there is a different story. It is still the case that about 300,000 Welsh workers earned below the living wage in 2012. I would like to say a very big “Well done and congratulations” to Newport council for its decision last week to implement the living wage.
	In Wales, we have seen the largest increase in the UK in the number of people who want to work more hours but cannot find them due to the Tories’ failed economic policies. Some 65,000 people are deemed to be under-employed in Wales. Only this morning, a young girl came into my office in Newport and talked about how hard it was for her family because her father’s hours had been reduced from 40 to 14. That is the reality for many people in my constituency.
	In recent weeks, there has been bad news for employment in our city of Newport. First, there were the job losses at the Avana bakery—the Secretary of State has been involved with this—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). The bakery announced that it would possibly lose up to 650 jobs following the loss of a contract with Marks and Spencer. Secondly, we learned that there is a threat to public sector jobs at the Ministry of Justice shared services centre in Celtic Springs. Then, only this week, we heard the very hard news that 123 jobs are under threat at the Orb steel works, which has a long history of steelmaking in my constituency and is a subsidiary of Tata Steel. At the MOJ and Orb works, there are things that the Government could do to step in, and that is the focus of my remarks.
	This week’s announcement that Tata Steel will be restructuring the work force at the Orb steelworks may lead to the loss of 83 direct jobs and 40 contractors’ jobs. That is really hard news for those workers—and their families—who have worked extremely flexibly over the past few years. These are skilled jobs that we can ill afford to lose from Wales. It is an extremely challenging time for the steel industry in Wales, and this announcement underlines that. Demand for steel is down, imports from outside Europe are up and steel manufacturers are
	being hit by higher energy costs. The price of electricity for steelmakers in the UK is about 38% higher than in France and 56% higher than in Germany. Those are massive differences and they are hitting our industries. UK producers also pay levies and taxes such as the carbon floor price and the renewables obligation, but German and French steelmakers—not to mention those outside Europe—are largely protected from those. The accumulative impact is that we are putting UK steelmakers at a competitive disadvantage, with customers seeing UK energy costs as a particular problem.
	I know that the Government have accepted the arguments that high energy prices impact on UK manufacturers and that the most energy-intensive industries should be protected from rising green taxes. However, what has been done so far is not enough to mitigate those costs or reverse the manufacturers’ fortunes. In the Budget, the Government need to take more action on high energy costs, the carbon price floor and renewable obligations, which are hitting us really hard, particularly in Wales, at a time when demand for steel is down.

Albert Owen: My hon. Friend is making a very important point. The carbon price floor, which disadvantages this country, was brought in unilaterally in the past couple of years. We cannot blame Europe for that; it is down to this British Government.

Jessica Morden: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I very much agree with him. I know that time is running out, but we need Wales Office Ministers urgently to press the Treasury on that matter in advance of the Budget.
	The Government are also potentially to offshore Government jobs from the MOJ shared services centre in Newport. I am very reliant on the public sector in my constituency. People in the public sector have had their wages frozen and there has been a sustained attack on their numbers. In fact, in the recent Centre for City report, Newport came bottom for employment growth in the private sector.
	Was it only in January that the Prime Minister said that we must become the “reshoring nation”? You would not think so, because only weeks later his Ministers are embarking on a path that could lead the MOJ shared services centre into a contract that will allow offshoring. The Newport office employs about 1,000 staff in back-office functions. The Cabinet Office and the MOJ want to privatise those jobs, and so far nothing has been said by Ministers to alleviate fears. In fact, the Justice Secretary told me:
	“To be a competitive and viable business…needs to be in line with other companies of this kind, which often see non-customer facing transactional roles being sourced offshore. The creation and operation model…reflects government guidelines with off shoring being a feature of many successful public sector contracts.”
	If the Prime Minister is so keen on private companies reshoring jobs, why is his Government so keen on offshoring Government jobs? The situation is ludicrous. Will Welsh Ministers tell the Cabinet Office and the Justice Secretary that, especially in the light of other job losses in Newport, these are good public sector jobs that we really need to keep in Newport?
	To end on a positive note, the Welsh Government’s deal with Pinewood Studios to bring a new film studio to Newport is very welcome and a good boost to us locally, as is the Welsh Government’s setting up of the reNewport taskforce, which has recently come up with lots of innovative ideas for improving things in Newport. It has been warmly welcomed and has harnessed much local enthusiasm.
	Last but not least, I welcome the announcement about the NATO summit in September. We are looking forward to that and I am also looking forward to working very closely with Wales Office Ministers to maximise its impact on the community and employers of Newport.

Mark Williams: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and his colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), for making the application to the Backbench Business Committee. I very much agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) said this morning during business questions and what the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) has said about the need to re-establish this as an annual debate on important matters in Wales, ideally as close as possible to the day we celebrate our patron saint.
	This year, the promenade in Aberystwyth may be rather more familiar to Members as a result of the media interest in the storms that lashed the west Wales coast. Not just Aberystwyth was affected; Borth, Clarach, Aberaeron, Llangrannog and Cardigan all faced the brunt of the storms. I take this opportunity to thank all those in our communities—the voluntary sector, council workers, the emergency services—who did such sterling work to get us back on our feet. One Saturday morning stands out: 150 local residents physically cleared debris off the promenade to make it smart again.
	I thank the Welsh Assembly Government for their response: as the Minister responsible, Alun Davies quickly came to see what was going on; £1.5 million has been pledged to the county for renovating the promenade; and Mrs Hart and Mrs Hutt have announced £560,000 for promoting the tourist sector. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who I know took a great interest in what was going on. He has been in touch with the county council in relation to military support being made available when storms hit again, which has also been much appreciated.
	At the time, there was much local speculation about whether funding would be forthcoming from the EU solidarity fund, and I asked a question in the House about that. It would be useful if the Secretary of State clarified whether a request was ever made by the Welsh Assembly Government to access European funds, whether the substantive fund or the regional fund. I go further to suggest that if we believe in devolution—and I very much do—the responsibility for such matters as flood protection and the alleviation of flood damage rests with the National Assembly for Wales, so should the Welsh Assembly Government simply wait for the Westminster Government to act, if they can under European Union criteria, or should they make a request? I am not sure whether such a request has been made, but either way,
	the resources made available by the Welsh Assembly Government to Ceredigion have been much welcomed, as, I repeat, has been the interest shown by the Secretary of State.
	Ceredigion is open for business—the promenade in Aberystwyth is open for business—and like the hon. Member for Ynys Môn, I want to use this opportunity to talk about the tourist sector. We are all aware of the triangular tour made by visitors to Britain—a few days in London, off to Edinburgh, down to Stratford-on-Avon and back to London before jetting off home to wherever they have come from. Somehow, Wales is often overlooked in the tourist sector. If that is a problem for Wales generally, it is certainly a problem for those of us on the periphery of Wales. Despite our coastal path, the agri-tourism sector and the beauty of the Cambrian mountains, generating tourism is a real challenge, partly because of transport infrastructure, but also because of the costs to visitors.
	That matter needs to be set in the context of the importance of tourism and the real potential for growth. Some 3,000 jobs in my constituency are dependent on tourism. The potential for growth was identified by a British Hospitality Association report, appropriately subtitled, “Driving local economies and underpinning communities”, which suggested a 5% cut in VAT for the hospitality sector. That issue is not unique to Wales, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies)—I emphasise the hon. Friend—who said that he will look at the effect of making a 5% cut across the whole United Kingdom. He is right that we need to do that, and I urge Welsh Ministers to make that case for the United Kingdom to their colleagues in the Treasury. It has been estimated that we could create another 2,000 jobs in my constituency and another 20,000 jobs across Wales by 2020. There is huge potential, but Wales of course relies on tourist industry jobs: 8.3% of our jobs in Ceredigion and 8% of our jobs in Wales are dependent on the tourist sector. There are precedents, not least in Europe, where 24 of the 28 member states have such a policy.

Hywel Williams: Has the hon. Gentleman made any assessment of the extra tax take that would accrue to the UK Government from the employment of those extra people?

Mark Williams: I have not made any such assessment, but if the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard for the debate on VAT and tourism in Westminster Hall a couple of weeks ago, he will see the figures that were produced. There will of course be a hit on the UK economy in the first year, but we need to consider the gains that will accrue thereafter. I most strongly commend that point to my Front-Bench colleagues.
	I want briefly to talk about rurality in general, and the extent to which the rural dimension is considered by policy makers in Whitehall. I must say that the Welsh case is strongly represented throughout Whitehall by Welsh Ministers, but the rural dimension can sometimes be overlooked. For example, accessing work capability assessments is a challenge in rural areas such as mine, where there is limited public transport. I suggest that a disproportionate number of my constituents have missed appointments and suffered penalties as a consequence of living in rural areas.
	We have lost tax offices. Aberystwyth lost its tax office under the last Labour Government and is now losing its tax advice centre. Instead, west Wales will be served by a roving team of experts from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. We are losing face-to-face contact and expertise on the ground. It was anticipated that VAT returns would be made to HMRC online, but 20% of my constituency is yet to get broadband.
	The hon. Member for Monmouth rightly raised concerns about the health service. We have lost our consultant and midwife unit, which is something that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) will relate to. The Welsh Labour Government are much more interested in the urban agenda than in the challenges that we face in mid and west Wales.
	We could talk endlessly and there are many more points that I want to make. I hope that we have such a debate again, particularly so that there is another opportunity to talk about rural Wales.

Chris Evans: This is the first time that you have called me to speak in a debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, so may I congratulate you, somewhat belatedly, on your elevation to the Chair?

Owen Smith: You smoothie.

Chris Evans: Thank you very much.
	Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), who is not in his place, I bemoan the lack of the St David’s day debate, which has been held since 1944. When Aneurin Bevan spoke in this place in 1944, he said that there were no Welsh problems, only problems. The wonderful thing about the Welsh day debate that we are missing is that it allows us to bring up issues that usually go unnoticed in this House. Today, I will bring up the issue of truancy in schools.
	Truancy is not simply a matter for schools; increasingly, it affects the whole of society. It is a complex issue. It is not simply about pupils skipping school to go to the park with their friends, but is often a sign of deeper problems at home and, in some cases, of abuse. If a pupil truants from school often enough, they will be excluded. They will thereby miss out not only on a worthwhile education, but on the support network that schools provide. That can result in people falling in with the wrong crowd and getting into trouble with the police, making them less desirable to potential employers.
	When I visit schools in my constituency, I am always impressed by the level of pastoral care that students receive. Head teachers have told me that for some students, that care is arguably more important than traditional classes. For many students, the support that they receive in school is invaluable. That is why exclusions and truancy are serious issues.
	Over the past few years, the Welsh Government have done an incredible amount of work to prevent schoolchildren from being permanently excluded. Just 102 pupils were permanently removed from Welsh schools last year, which is almost 100 fewer than in 2009-10, when there were 200 exclusions. That is a step in the right direction. However, I will focus today on what is known as “soft exclusion”.
	The number of temporary exclusions is still too high. There were 17,508 temporary exclusions in 2011-12 in Wales alone. More research and data are needed to explain why that is occurring. In October 2009, my predecessor, Lord Touhig, asked a parliamentary question about what research the previous Government had done on the effects of exclusion on pupils. He was told that no research had been commissioned. Sadly, that is still the case. What do young people do when they are excluded temporarily? Do they miss out on work? In reality, we just do not know.
	In preparation for this debate, I read a report by the charity, Barnardo’s, which did some research on the use of unlawful exclusions. That is when schools ask parents to keep their children away from school without providing a formal notification of exclusion. Local authorities know nothing about such exclusions. There is obviously not a huge amount of data in this area, which is unfortunate, but the Barnardo’s study is based on anecdotal evidence.
	I shall quote from the report. One parent said:
	“From year 7 the head of year would phone me to say he’d been excluded, but no time scale would be mentioned. A letter would arrive two days later telling me how many days it was. There was no work set or given.”
	The report heard evidence from parents of a lack of dialogue between schools and families, which leaves the pupils falling behind. One parent said:
	“The head of year would ring me and say they were thinking of excluding him. Sometimes there would be a letter. It takes two days or more to arrive and it would say work would be set two days after that, but by then the exclusion time would have passed.”
	The police in Blackwood say that the problems in the market area are caused mainly by young people who have been excluded, whether temporarily or permanently. That demonstrates the drain on police resources and the wider effect that this issue has on society. I was even alarmed to find, shockingly and tragically, that pupils with special needs accounted for a little over 60% of all exclusions in Wales in 2012-13, and those with school action and school action plus special educational needs had the highest rate of permanent exclusions at 0.6% per 1,000 pupils. A report by the charity Ambitious about Autism found that four in 10 children with autism had been informally excluded temporarily.

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman raises extremely important points. Does he share my concern that some local authorities in Wales have a policy not to statement children? The statementing of children can be extremely important in some cases, to provide the right level of support that will ultimately prevent exclusion in special needs cases.

Chris Evans: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and that is the point I was trying to make. There is a lack of research and data, and if more children were statemented and we knew what was going on, we would be able to address the issue.
	If such things are happening on a large scale, the Government need to look into it and investigate further. Why is it happening? Is it because schools are not equipped to deal with autistic young people? The Barnardo’s report I mentioned earlier contained a statement from a parent with an autistic child:
	“There are teachers who manage him fine, and those who don’t sympathise with his situation. Sending him home for 3 days is not the best option and there’s no discussion of strategies for managing his behaviour. Reasons vary, but generally he’s sent home once every 3 weeks.”
	In my constituency we are extremely fortunate to have an excellent autism unit at Risca community comprehensive, and the support students receive is fantastic. The same is also true of Coleg Gwent at Crosskeys, where pupils go on to become independent live-in students. Perhaps there are areas across the country not so fortunate, but excluding children from schools on the basis that staff cannot cater to their needs is to me completely unacceptable. What concerns me is that no data on these informal exclusions are held centrally. I would like some form of Government investigation into how prevalent the issue is in schools, not only in Wales, but across the UK.
	How vast is the problem? It seems to me that we simply do not know, although we do know that more than 10% of 16 to 18-year-olds are not in employment, education or training, compared with 23% of 19 to 24-year-olds. To me, those figures are unacceptable. It is all very well trying to score political points, as some of us have tried to do today, but we must understand why the figures are so high.
	Charities and organisations understand this problem much better than I do. Catch22 is a social business that does an excellent job of getting young people into the habit of attending school and following a schedule. Speak to Catch22 and it will say that when young people play truant and eventually drop out of the mainstream education system, it is important that their aspirations are rebuilt and that character and resilience are developed. Those are interesting ideas, and the Government need to work closely with those fantastic organisations to find a long-term solution to the problem.
	With so many young people leaving school with no future plans, we must think about how we can create opportunities for people who may have fallen out of mainstream education. No Member of this House wants young people to be excluded from school and never to reintegrate into society, and there are apprenticeship schemes that focus not on academic achievement but on learning a genuine worthwhile skill that will help a participant stay in work for years.
	In my constituency, I speak all the time to businesses with excellent apprenticeship schemes. Last week I met Hafod Quarry in Abercarn, which told me about a five-year scheme that essentially guarantees employment in the industry for many years. Pensord Press in Pontllanfraith and Joyner PA in Risca offer similar apprenticeships that develop skills and lead to full-time work. There are, however, businesses that have told me that they cannot recruit young people locally because they do not have the so-called “soft skills” of communication, turning up on time and completing tasks. Those who played truant and left the education system at an early age are most likely to struggle with those essential skills. If someone without those skills is put in front of an interviewer, they simply will not get the job. That is why it is so important we get the issue right now.
	Our education system needs to set up Welsh youngsters for the future, and I do not think unlawful exclusions are part of that. I would like something that my predecessor asked the previous Labour Government for almost
	five years ago—concrete data and a definitive study into levels of exclusion in schools and the reasons for truancy. Without that we are doing our young people a disservice. In light of the evidence available, expulsion should be the last resort while all avenues are investigated to address unacceptable behaviour in our schools.

Alun Cairns: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I rise to speak as a passionate Welshman who enjoys Welsh history, our proud culture and the contribution that many Welshmen have made to the history of Wales, the UK and beyond. I will try to be positive, and I will ask my questions in a positive spirit.
	Whatever people’s opinions of devolution in 1997 after the referendum, there was a genuine hope across all political parties that devolution would work and make a difference. It provided a great chance to make a difference and develop a Government who could respond to changing needs, react to problems as they emerged, and take decisions much closer to the electorate.
	My main subject today will be the reputation of Wales, my worry that its governance is damaging that reputation and the consequences of such damage. It is easy to say, after one four-year term of governance, that reforms were established but there has not been enough opportunity to see the outcomes and benefits. After a second term, that argument gets somewhat weaker and we would expect to see some benefits. But after nearly 15 years, we should really be seeing some positive outcome from devolution, such as the “devolution dividend” as it was called at one time.
	Sadly, in so many areas, if not almost all areas—I am trying to think of one where I am wrong—the relative position of Wales has fallen back, compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not want to be party political in making that point, but I seek an acceptance that Wales is now the poorest part of the UK. That was not the case before 1997. As a result, the challenge of attracting investment and creating entrepreneurship is so much greater. It is so much more difficult to attract investment to the poorest part of the UK, because the gross domestic product and the value of the spend is not as high. The reputation of Wales is therefore key.

Roger Williams: I am following my hon. Friend’s argument closely. Does he agree that part of the problem is that Wales has a legacy of ill health from heavy industry and a legacy of economic inactivity because of the loss of those industries? That has never been reflected in the Barnett formula so those needs are still unmet in Wales.

Alun Cairns: I accept part of that, but I would also look to areas that have a similar legacy but are not the poorest parts of the United Kingdom. Those are the very same points that, it was argued, would be corrected by Adminstrations that would take decisions much closer to the people. I speak as a pro-devolutionist—I am not against the institution, I am against the governance, the way in which the institution has worked and how policy has been set.

David Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that parts of the United Kingdom, such as Northern Ireland, are poorer than Wales, but achieve better outcomes in
	areas such as education? It must be partly, if not wholly, the responsibility of the Government of the Welsh Assembly that things are so bad there.

Alun Cairns: My hon. Friend is right, because a culture developed in which everything was judged by the amount of money that was put into it, rather than the outcomes that were derived from the investment.
	When we talk about reputation, we need to accept that the way in which Wales is currently reported is not positive. I am very saddened by that, but it is largely because the column inches in the press tend to focus on health and education. They are essential to attracting inward investment, because middle and senior management would have to use the national health service and send their children to the schools. That must be added to the way in which Wales is perceived and the challenge that we have in attracting investment thereafter.
	Let us focus on education, because without doubt a nation’s future is built on the quality of its education. In the past few years alone, there has been a determination to develop different qualifications, sometimes for the sake of being different, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) mentioned earlier. When there was a drive to introduce greater rigour in GCSE outcomes, in Wales we saw political intervention. In England, politics was kept out of it completely, and the policy direction was set for greater rigour and stronger assessments of standards. In Wales, there was a determination to change that.
	What worries me most, as the father of a 10-year-old, is that qualifications in Wales could be seen to be secondary to their counterparts in England. I really hope that, for those who gained GCSE qualifications last year, employers will accept Welsh qualifications as being of the same standard as those in England. However, there was an upgrade in more than 1,000 cases, and that may make employers and higher education institutions question them. For example, the Welsh baccalaureate is not accepted by some universities, and that is sad. That reputational damage is now being perpetuated by the outcomes of what the programme for international student assessment judged to be tragically lower standards. As we seek to attract investment to turn the economy around, the quality of public services is essential.

Valerie Vaz: I hope the hon. Gentleman does not feel that I am just trying to look on the positive side, but he must be aware that Cardiff university is a Russell Group university and that it accepts students from the Welsh education system. It also has two Nobel laureate prize winners.

Alun Cairns: Cardiff university is a fantastic university. The funding structure in Wales is starving the university of funding, as compared to its counterparts in England. The question we need to be asking ourselves is this: how can Cardiff university maintain its standards and status when, because of the different funding structure, there is more funding going into higher education in Wales? That is another sign of the reputational damage being caused by the decisions that are being taken.

Owen Smith: The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to show some respect for devolution, but could he be a little more impartial with the facts he employs? Will he
	tell us, for example, whether he accepts that the Welsh Government should be congratulated for there being a fall of just 250 in the number of students applying to university in Wales, when the fall in England has been 25,000—a hundredfold difference?

Alun Cairns: That is the sort of response that does not get us anywhere. I am looking for an intelligent debate to accept the reality of the situation. Unless we accept the reality, we cannot take the intelligent decisions needed to make changes.
	In the time that remains, I want to mention health. I had hoped that yesterday was a turning point. The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) made an extremely powerful contribution to the debate yesterday. Two weeks earlier, we had learned of data she had brought to the attention of Professor Sir Bruce Keogh. He wrote to his counterpart in Wales, seeking to probe the data that had been shared with him. The response came from a politician, rather than a clinician, who was furious and said that this was an attempt by the Conservative party to
	“drag Welsh NHS through the mud”.
	The reality, however, is that Sir Bruce Keogh stated in the e-mail that he did not know enough about it, but thought there was a potential smokescreen. There needs to be an intelligent debate, otherwise its reputation will be damaged further.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Members will be aware that this has been a lively debate with many interventions. Interventions lengthen speeches, however. If everyone is to have the chance to speak this afternoon, I have no choice but to reduce the time limit to four minutes.

Nick Smith: I am pleased to be able to speak in this St David’s day debate.
	Let me remind the House, as I like to on these occasions, of the strengths of Blaenau Gwent and the challenges that it faces. We have a proud cultural and political heritage. We gave the United Kingdom its precious national health service, and we have a strong record of serving our country in the armed forces. The Brecon Beacons national park is on our doorstep, and our industrial legacy of coal and steel is a proud one. Yet in the last decade there has been no alternative large-scale industry to take the place of steel and coal. There has been investment in transport, health and education, but our readiness for development has been cruelly coincidental with a worldwide recession and a reduction in the public sector employment that has been so important in Wales. We know that our Welsh valleys communities are resilient and look after their own, but we need jobs.
	I want to talk about transport, jobs and education. The year 2014 has not brought the glad tidings for which we hoped. Unemployment has risen, and Government action is needed to deliver the jobs and growth that will secure our economic recovery. The heads of the valleys line has been greatly improved in recent years, but work is still needed on the Gilwern to
	Brynmawr section. The council and the Welsh Government have reopened the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff railway line, but it needs to be electrified and redoubled. In December I asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury if he would consider bringing forward the electrification of the south Wales valleys lines, but we have heard nothing so far.

Chris Evans: My hon. Friend uses the Ebbw Valley railway when he travels through my constituency. Does he agree that if we are to bring jobs and growth to the valleys in constituencies such as ours, the lines must be electrified as a matter of urgency?

Nick Smith: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.
	Another important rail improvement is a new spur line to Abertillery. On Facebook this week, I was told that
	“the youngsters in Abertillery need to be given the same access to employment as young people everywhere. The rail link is vital for the valley.”
	I find the young people in Blaenau Gwent eager to work, but lacking in opportunity and experience. Along with the local jobcentre, I shall be hosting a seminar later this month for local employers, much as my hon. Friend did. I hope that they will sign up to offer work experience to our under 21s. The longer people are out of work, the more difficult it is for them to find work again and make ends meet.
	As might be expected, when investors do come to Blaenau Gwent with a project, we take it seriously. The proposed development of a motor sport facility, the Circuit of Wales, in my constituency represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity. When I first heard the proposal for a racing track in the clouds I was sceptical, but having now watched “Top Gear” too often, I have a better understanding of the petrolheads who want an exciting circuit rather than an old airfield track.
	It is, of course, important for the business plan for the circuit to stand up to scrutiny, and the Welsh Government have done the due diligence on it, but because of planning complications, there is a delay. Although this will be a largely private sector investment, United Kingdom Government support is still needed. The Welsh Secretary—fair dos—has repeatedly indicated support for the Circuit of Wales, but it still has no Treasury support. The Circuit of Wales developers believe that the UK has underinvested in motorsport infrastructure, as they foresee a significant demand for new facilities to meet the needs of modern motor sports. They are working hard to recruit the investors who are needed for this £250 million, 800-acre proposal. That is the key test. The developers now need to put together a portfolio of financial support, and they have my wholehearted backing for that endeavour. I hope that the Minister will continue to be positive about the proposal, especially in view of the Government’s proposal for a new public-private partnership.
	Finally, let me stress the importance of education, which is paramount if we are to look forward to a brighter future in Blaenau Gwent. Our education system must give all pupils the tools that will enable them to succeed, in Wales and in our global world. If Blaenau Gwent is to enjoy the 21st century, we need investment across the board, and that means improved transport, sustainable jobs, and a first-class education system.

Roger Williams: St David famously instructed his followers on his deathbed to do the little things, and he probably understood that I would have only four minutes to speak, so I shall focus my comments on two steps that I would like to see in the forthcoming Budget. I have confidence that one of them will be in it because it was announced in the autumn statement: two reductions in employer national insurance contributions. In my constituency between January 2013 and January 2014 unemployment fell from just over 900 to just over 600, but more importantly the number of 18 to 24-year-olds who were unemployed and claiming benefit fell from just over 300 to just over 200. However, that does not hide the anxiety of those who are desperate to get into employment and are still finding it difficult to do so.
	One of the reductions in employer NICs is to reduce every business’s contribution by £2,000. That will be especially advantageous to small businesses, which are so typical of rural Wales. In particular it will encourage those who are perhaps sole traders—just one-man or one-woman bands—to take on their first employee. I am hoping that will encourage them to do so.
	The other reduction in employer NICs is that no employer contributions will be paid for employees who are under 21. That will be a great incentive for businesses to take on young people, and in particular apprentices—and this week is apprenticeship week.
	I am confident that that measure will be in the Budget, and I am given to understand that the other measure might also be in it. I therefore ask the Secretary of State and the Minister to insist it is kept in the Budget if they see it any draft documents. I have raised on a number of occasions the plight of people who are off-grid—who do not get mains gas. Their energy costs are very high because mains gas is the cheapest form of fuel. Instead, they have to depend on heating oil, liquefied petroleum gas, solid fuel and sometimes electricity to heat their homes. Also, they do not get the dual fuel tariffs that people who receive both gas and electricity on the grid can benefit from. I understand that giving some respite to people who are off-grid may be considered, and I can make some suggestions in that regard. One of them is to give a subsidy so that the national grid can connect those communities that do not have the benefit of mains gas. All the communities of Howey, Llangynidr, Abercraf and Talgarth in my constituency would greatly benefit from mains gas, and that would have a great input into reducing fuel poverty.

Jonathan Edwards: Carmarthenshire has a very proud history. Some say it has a claim to be the birthplace of Welsh democracy, which is a reference to Carmarthenshire’s role in delivering a yes vote for the National Assembly in the successful 1997 referendum. However, a dark cloud has been hanging over local democracy in Carmarthenshire for far too long, with a ruling cabal of senior officials and executive board members repressively running the council, stopping democratic debate by the full council, pressurising local journalists, smearing opposition politicians, coercing a council chair who dared defy instruction and making financial arrangements to enable the chief executive, a man who earns almost £4,000 a week, to avoid paying
	his fair share of tax. A seemingly permanent back-room deal between Labour and so-called independent councillors—or the closet Tories as the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) describes them—means elections are unlikely to lead to political change. At the last local authority elections, my party won the largest number of seats convincingly, achieving over 10,000 more votes than our Labour opponents. It is the same discredited personnel at the helm, however.
	Given the number of mentions that Carmarthenshire has had in Private Eye’s “Rotten Boroughs” column, one might think that the executive board members would have got the message. However, unrepentant, the council and the executive board are moving towards darker waters. That is what happens when we have a toxic combination of weak executive board councillors and powerful senior officers. The warnings relating to recent events could not have been clearer. Local papers have lost advertising revenue, which could bankrupt their businesses, for daring to criticise executive board decisions. We have seen the steady erosion of the democratic process, with powers being taken away from councillors and put into the hands of unelected officers, and with the executive board rubber-stamping decisions and, to all intents and purposes, operating as the political wing of those senior officers.
	In the past month, a report from the independent Wales Audit Office has found that the executive board was guilty of sanctioning two unlawful payments for the benefit of the chief executive. Those payments totalled more than £50,000. One relates to the granting of a legal indemnity which enabled the chief executive to counter-sue a local blogger. The second relates to a tax dodge involving the redirection of pension contributions into the pocket of the chief executive. The report was damning, and any politician with a sense of integrity would have done the honourable thing and instigated an urgent investigation into the implicated officers before resigning on the spot themselves. Instead, we got a deliberate propaganda campaign from the publicly financed press department of the council to discredit the Wales Audit Office, and threats and smears against opposition politicians.
	Last week, the people of Carmarthenshire were subjected to a farcical extraordinary meeting to discuss the Wales Audit Office report. The executive board commissioned a QC, at a potential cost of thousands of pounds to Carmarthenshire ratepayers, to discredit the Wales Audit Office’s findings and protect its leaders from votes of no confidence.
	This has all been happening at a time when the executive board is pushing through huge cuts to council services and increasing council tax by almost 5%. The Labour party in Carmarthenshire is pushing through the privatisation of care services, increasing charges for school meals, reducing assessments for children with special needs, making financial cuts to welfare advice services and extending and increasing charges for social care, as well as introducing a range of other regressive measures.
	It is a matter of pressing concern that, despite being relieved of his duties, the chief executive of Carmarthenshire county council will continue to be the local returning officer for the forthcoming European elections. The Electoral Commission has confirmed that position. I fail to understand how an individual who is no longer at
	his desk due to a police investigation can be responsible for the democratic processes in my county. The same applies in Pembrokeshire, unless events in that great county have changed the situation today, and I ask for immediate ministerial intervention.

Hywel Williams: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) on securing this debate, and I fully endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) has just said.
	My party wants Wales to be an independent country. We know that will take time—we just have to accept that—but that is no reason to abandon the aim. Some Members will be familiar with the Welsh saying, “Ara’ deg mae dal iâr”, which means “You catch hens slowly.” We, the Welsh, have been here on these islands for a very long time—independent for most of the centuries, incorporated for the rest—and we are not going anywhere any time soon. We therefore need to discuss this among ourselves, as a self-aware nation, and agree on what power we want.
	In this context, the examples from the mainland of Europe and from Scotland are useful and instructive. Last night, I was talking to the Catalan counsel general. The Catalans have been told by Madrid that they cannot hold a referendum on independence. One Spanish politician went so far as to threaten them with military occupation if they dared to press for their freedom. So hundreds of individual communes have instead held local referendums, which demonstrated overwhelming support for independence. We also saw the extraordinary demonstration in Barcelona last year, when more than 1 million people crowded the streets of the capital to call for independence. A national referendum is due there in the autumn, and we will watch the outcome with interest. I have also been talking to the Basques. There, the peace process has made great strides, but the Government in Madrid are now dragging their heels. Getting the peace process on track there is vital to greater autonomy, which is perhaps why the Madrid Government are acting in that way.
	In Scotland, to the disgust and dismay of some politicians in this place and commentators in the City, and to the delight of others, our colleagues in the Scottish National party are defining what it means to rule themselves while retaining an inter-dependence of equals in these islands and on this continent. The SNP’s opponents cry, “Foul! Not fair! If you want independence it must be on our terms.” Politics and international politics are about negotiation, as we are seeing in Paris and Brussels today. In Wales, we have a problem with taking responsibility—some of us are too resigned to being victims. I will say this for now: power to spend without the responsibility of raising the money is corrosive, as we have seen in Wales, and to the extent that the draft Wales Bill leads us to take responsibility for ourselves it is much to be welcomed.
	The shadow Secretary of State, speaking as a historian, said of the decline of Wales:
	“I attribute it to 150 years of history, industry, the legacy of change, the demographics of our country, the distance from London and the simple truth that Wales has a greater relative
	need than many parts of England, which requires a greater degree of expenditure.”—[
	Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee,
	23 January 2013; c.21.]
	That is all very germane, but hon. Members will have noted immediately that this statement contains no agency. These woes appear have been visited upon us passively— by accident almost. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) is not unsophisticated; he knows full well that historical events do not just happen. So I look forward to our debates on the Wales Bill and perhaps a more piercing analysis of our predicament from those on the Opposition Front Bench. Who knows, a clearer analysis might even lead them to change their stance, which is seen by many here and in Wales as one of delay at all costs.

Madeleine Moon: This is the Welsh affairs debate, but we are also today considering the role of women, so I wish to spend time looking at the role of women in Wales. MPs had the opportunity today to invite a young person—a young girl—from our constituency to join us, to shadow politicians and to see how we worked. That is very important and Amy Edwards, a young girl from Bryntiriion comprehensive school in Bridgend, spent the day with me. I asked that school to send someone because I was particularly impressed by the young girls there and their eagerness to participate in political discussion and debate, and to ask for more information and to gain greater understanding.
	I was horrified when I saw the Equality and Human Rights Commission report “Who runs Wales?” I do not know how many hon. Members have seen it, but it sets out a clear message that Wales remains a country where those taking the major decisions that have an impact on all of us remain, overwhelmingly, men. We need to set clear targets for public and private sector board appointments. We need to make sure that our women are educated so that they can take on the positions; so that different issues will be discussed and different viewpoints heard; so that we reflect the whole of the population of Wales; and so that politicians are in tune with the population we serve. We have a wealth of talent in Wales, but sadly we are still neglecting nearly 50% of it.
	In Wales, only 28% of police officers are women, but it gets worse at the top, where only 12% of chief constables are women; 77% of those working in health are women, but only 10% of health chief executives are women; 72% of people in local authorities are women, but only 18% of local authority chief executives are women. Teaching is no way to the top for women either, because 75% of all schoolteachers are women, but only 57% of head teachers are women. Even in the third sector only 36% of the leadership are women. The media are no better, with only 33% of senior management teams being women and only 22% of the editors of our daily newspapers and weekly nationals being women. The figure for the trade unions is only 36%. We must recognise that in the history of Welsh politics—since 1536—there have been only 13 female MPs. It is only because the Labour party used all-women shortlists that Labour has now increased its number of female MPs. Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives, from whom we have heard a great deal today about their aspirations for Wales, have never had a woman MP for Wales.
	We are about to lose two important women MPs from the Labour Benches. I look forward to having two, if not more, female MPs representing Wales, so that the voice of the women in Wales can be heard from these Benches and we can clearly represent the whole of Wales.

Owen Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) on securing this debate today. It has been an extraordinarily wide-ranging debate, as is traditionally the case with St David’s day debates. Many Members rightly highlighted the importance of having time in this House to debate the issues of Wales. I think that we can all agree that in the past three years, insufficient time has been spent on debating Welsh matters. Ignorance of the realities in Wales has perhaps grown in this House as a result. I hope that we have done something today to redress that imbalance and to shed some light on the issues, as I hope to do in my short remarks.
	My hon. Friend made a particularly enlightening and topical opening to today’s debate. He talked about the need to reflect the fact that people in Wales have shared identities in that they are both Welsh citizens and British citizens. Indeed, they can play rugby for Wales and for the British Lions—they can captain either team and still feel themselves to be British and Welsh. That is something that I feel very strongly about and that I hope everyone in this House supports. My hon. Friend also said that we need to capitalise on the great economic strengths of our country, and especially on the energy and tourism potential of Wales. I entirely endorse all that he said in that regard.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) reminded us of the history of the St David’s day debate. He even told us that this was the day of St Colette, the patron saint of pregnant women. At this point, I cannot help but congratulate Kate Groucutt, who is pregnant and leaving my office. She has been the special adviser to the Welsh Affairs team over the past few years.
	More importantly, but slightly surreally, my right hon. Friend talked about the problems in his constituency of head shops, which sell legal highs. The problem is massive and growing in communities such as his and mine, and we must get to grips with it notwithstanding the difficulties of legislating in this complicated area.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) talked about the economy of Wales, and highlighted two issues in her constituency that have wider implications and ramifications across the UK. The first was the loss of steel jobs at the Orb works, due to the inordinately high energy prices that companies in Britain are paying compared with their European competitors. I am sure that we all understand that we need to get to grips with that matter not just for individual consumers of energy in this country but for vital foundational industries.
	The second was the problem of offshore jobs. My hon. Friend highlighted the irony of a Government who claim to be seeking to reshore jobs overseeing the offshoring of Government jobs in the Ministry of Justice shared services centre in Newport. You could not make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is what is happening.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) raised the important issue of truancy and called for improvements in the way in which our schools deal with challenging children in Britain, and I entirely agree with him. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) also talked about the economy and threw his weight behind the proposal for a motor sport track and arena in Blaenau Gwent, and I support him on that, as I know the Secretary of State does. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) talked about women in Wales and the need for others to promote the talents of women within Wales. She highlighted the fact that the Labour party has done that in the National Assembly, where women make up almost 45% of all groups, and here in Westminster, where the Labour party stands alone in having a significant proportion of female members—32% of the current parliamentary Labour party. We need more, but it is a good start and better than what we are seeing from the Government.
	The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) talked about local government and the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) talked about devolution and suggested that I should be sophisticated and enlightening when addressing it myself, and I shall seek to do so at an appropriate moment.
	Government Members told us that they wanted to be respectful and positive—I think those were the words—about Wales and then failed to offer a single respectful and positive word; that was certainly the case for the Conservative Members. There were a number of positive remarks made by Liberal Democrat Members, such as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who congratulated the Welsh Government on their investment in flood defences in Wales; £4 million has been invested, in distinct contradiction to the direction of travel in Westminster where we have seen £97 million cut from flood defences, as confirmed last week by the Office for National Statistics. Perhaps that is why we did not see the same degree of problems in Wales as we did elsewhere.
	The hon. Members for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) were particularly jaundiced in their view of Wales and highlighted the volume of column inches about what they saw as poor public service performance. They bemoaned the fact that Wales was getting such bad press, but they know full well why Wales is getting a bad press and it is not because of the performance of Welsh public services and certainly not a fair representation—

Alun Cairns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Owen Smith: I am not going to give way—[Interruption.] No, I will not give way, because I—[Interruption.] Okay, I will give way once.

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but mortality rates, cancer waiting times and A and E access are just three examples; diagnostics in the health service are another. Those are fundamental issues that are dominating the UK newspapers because of poor performance in Wales. Is that not a sad situation?

Owen Smith: If the hon. Gentlemen can point to a hospital in Wales in which there are higher levels of unexpected mortality than he thinks there ought to be, I will listen seriously to him. However, he has not offered that—

Alun Cairns: The Princess of Wales.

Owen Smith: He says the Princess of Wales, where risk adjusted mortality indices improved by more than 20% over the past three years. We have seen significant improvements in mortality indices in Wales and he will know that people cannot do what he and his colleagues have done—and worse, what the Prime Minister has done on 29 occasions in this House—and take out of context extraordinarily complex mortality statistics and use them as a means to smear the Welsh NHS. Only this week, I was confronted with the reality of that smear campaign when I was contacted by members of the Welsh NHS workforce to ask me—

Alun Cairns: The unions.

Owen Smith: No, it was not a union. Somebody working in the NHS contacted me on their own behalf to ask what they could do to stop the Tories’ smear campaign dragging the reputation of the Welsh NHS through the mud. Members do not need to take my word for it; they could take the words of doctors in Wales. The British Medical Association in Wales said very clearly that this was “a wicked”—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary says from a sedentary position that this is about the trade unions, implying that it is somehow connected to the Labour party. He knows that that is not the case; he knows—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. We do not raise matters from a sedentary position. The hon. Gentleman is about to conclude.

Owen Smith: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The BMA has said that the claims are a “wicked slander”, perpetrated by people in whose interests it is to undermine the NHS, to perpetuate the myth that there is significantly worse performance in the NHS in Wales, compared with England. It is not true, it has not been true in the past and it will not be true in the future. What is true is that Welsh workers and the Welsh people are suffering lower wages, higher job insecurity, higher energy prices and greater difficulties as a result of this Government’s economic mismanagement of this country. In contrast, the Labour Government in Wales have delivered economically. They have delivered a lower unemployment rate in Wales than in the UK as a whole. I conclude by congratulating them on that.

David Jones: May I take this opportunity to wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a belated happy St David’s day? It is, in fact, the end of St David’s week. I commend the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) for recognising the importance of having such a debate and securing it. I echo what he said about the importance of being proud of our dual national identity—being both Welsh and British. It is something he understands, I understand, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) understands and clearly, and most importantly, Sam Warburton understands.
	The hon. Member for Ynys Môn focused his contribution largely on the economy, and rightly so. One of the joys of this office is that I have the privilege of travelling the length and breadth of Wales, meeting some of our
	world-leading companies, visiting the small and medium-sized enterprises that are very much the backbone of our economy and hearing inspirational stories of lives that have been transformed by securing employment.
	Wales has a proud industrial history. At the height of the industrial revolution, Wales was at the forefront of technological advances. It retains many innovative industries, from large multinationals, such as Airbus and Tata Steel, to small but dynamic niche market companies, such as Torquing in Pembroke Dock. We must have a thriving private sector, confident to create employment opportunities, innovate and expand into new markets.
	If Wales is to be a country where companies grow, invest and take on new people, the Government must create the right conditions to allow that to happen. That means cutting business taxes, reducing red tape and fixing the banking system. As a consequence of the measures we have put in place, corporation tax in the UK will be down to 20% in 2015, the lowest in the G20, and our red tape challenge means that by the end of this Parliament there will be fewer regulatory burdens on businesses than there were when we came to power in 2010. All that is good for Welsh businesses, but if we are really to succeed, we need the Welsh Government to work with us here in Westminster.
	In order to compete in a global market, we must also ensure that Wales has a highly skilled and educated work force. However, the recent PISA results, which my hon. Friends the Members for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) quite properly touched on, show that in education Wales is sadly falling further behind the rest of the UK and is internationally uncompetitive. The First Minister recently admitted that the Welsh Government had taken their eye off the ball on education in Wales. Well, admission of fault is a start, but what parents and employers now want to see, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan said, is an early start on improving educational outcomes in Wales.
	Crucial to economic success is infrastructure. This Government recognise the importance of high-quality infrastructure in a modern economy. Despite the difficult economic circumstances we inherited, we have made it a priority to invest in infrastructure upgrade. We have invested in energy, as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn kindly acknowledged, in transport infrastructure, with the electrification of the south Wales railway lines, and in first-class broadband, with an announcement of £57 million of investment and, most recently, another £12 million to ensure that the hardest-to-reach locations will be served. Once completed, we will have achieved a truly remarkable transformation. Wales will be part of one of the finest broadband networks in Europe.
	Hon. Members made a number of important points that I would like to deal with as far as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth is concerned about more powers for the Welsh Assembly, which I found quite surprising, coming from him. Nevertheless, we will shortly introduce the Wales Bill, which will give additional powers to the Welsh Assembly and, most importantly, will introduce for the first time a degree of accountability on the part of the Welsh Government for the money they spend. That can only be a good thing, and was welcomed by several hon. Members.
	The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) raised the important issue of legal highs. It is not new, and I remember raising precisely the same issue with his
	right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) when he was Home Secretary. This is a priority. We are working across Government and with delivery partners to tackle the elicit supply of and demand for legal highs. Legislation is only part of the solution and we are targeting those drugs on all fronts.
	We are seeking to reduce demand by raising awareness of their dangers not only among those who take them, but among family members and parents in particular, making it difficult to obtain and supply them, and ensuring that statutory services can provide effective treatment and recovery. I do not in any way seek to downplay the significance of the problem. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) raised the issue of mid-Wales. He said that it needs better treatment, and that it is a battle to develop awareness of it. As someone who is married to a lady from mid-Wales, I would not seek to overlook that part of the world. I agree with him entirely about cross-border routes which, as he knows, we are working on.
	The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) also spoke about legal highs, and raised the important issues of Avana bakeries and the Orb steelworks on which my office is engaged, as she knows. I fully understand the concern she expressed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) raised the issue of the recent storm damage and specifically whether the Assembly Government had made a request for assistance under the EU solidarity fund. Some inquiries were made by the Assembly Government with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but no direct request for assistance was made.
	The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) raised the important issue of exclusions. I refer him to a constituent of mine, Colette Ryan, a teacher at ysgol Emrys ap Iwan in Abergele and an inspirational lady. I would be pleased to discuss the matter with him at a later time.
	There were other important contributions and I apologise to hon. Members for not dealing with them specifically
	because of shortage of time. I am sure that hon. Members across the House are united in their desire that Wales should become more prosperous, more successful and, most of all, that we should continue to be proud to be Welsh.

Albert Owen: May I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a canny Scot with an English constituency, for impartially overseeing our debate on Welsh affairs? I was proud to move the debate and to be a co-sponsor with the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who could not be with us today because of a pre-arranged engagement.
	We had 12 Back-Bench contributions and two Front-Bench winding-up speeches, all of them valuable. The debate was over-subscribed, which is proof that we need an annual full-day Welsh debate in the House. The Leader of the House is in his place and taking the issues on board.
	I teased the Chamber about the anti-European views of Conservative Back Benchers and the pro-independence view of Plaid Cymru. The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) did not disappoint in his contribution. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) suggested that Welsh Members are victims. I see us as full participants, not victims in any way.
	When the Secretary of State talked about broadband in Wales, he gave a great example of where the Welsh Government are leading on such matters, working with the UK Government, with funds from the European Union, and with the private sector. We are all working together for the good of Wales. We in this House must be proud of our Welshness and of the fact that we are an integral part of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, as well as pro-Europeans. In May, if you want a pro-Welsh, pro-British, pro-European party, vote Labour.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered Welsh affairs.

CARPET WASTE FIRE (THRUNTON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Amber Rudd.)

Alan Beith: The story I have to put to the Minister this afternoon is one of gross disregard for the environment and for my constituents, inadequate regulation by the Environment Agency, and deplorable political pressure on the authorities not to act to protect my constituents. In raising this issue, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the personal interest they have taken in it since I raised it with them.
	A fire of carpet waste has burned for almost six months on the site of an old brickworks at Thrunton in my constituency. The site is alongside the busy A697, and adjoining or close to it are 26 houses, some of them built for the brickworks’ staff. Some time after it closed in 2010, the owner, Mr Blythe, who has done everything he could to help deal with the situation, made it available to Blackwater (North East) Ltd for waste carpet storage, relying on the company to obtain and comply with the necessary approvals.
	During the afternoon of 3 September 2013, the waste carpet at Thrunton caught fire. Fire crews rushed to the scene and started trying to tackle the fire. There was an enormous amount of smoke from the fire, completely blocking the adjacent A697. Traffic was diverted. The stench could be smelled up to 15 miles away, beyond Alnwick and Rothbury. Local residents shut their windows and doors and were told to stay inside. The fire quickly spread to bales of carpet both inside and outside the buildings where they were stored. Pouring water on the fire was cooling the outer surface of the burning carpet, but then a hard crust was forming and the water was running off, leaving the fire alight inside the bales. The building that housed some of the bales, part of the former brickworks, partly collapsed. Due to the volume of water and the lie of the land, the water running off from the fire crews’ efforts was also threatening the neighbouring watercourses and fishing lake.
	The bales of carpet had been stored outside the area where they were permitted to be kept, which meant that instead of being on a hard concrete area, they were on porous ground that could soak up the contaminated run-off water. That ground covers the natural aquifer where water collects and feeds the local spring, which supplies water to the properties at Thrunton. Such was the danger to this supply that the control team decided that the fire could not be put out and would have to be managed while it burned itself out. The fire was finally judged to be out in the second week of February 2014.
	There have been regular inspections of the site by officers from Northumberland’s fire and rescue service, the Environment Agency, the environmental health department, and Public Health England, as well as my own staff. A misting system was installed to damp down the fire, but that was problematic, and there had been several attempts to get it in place before November.
	The landowner, Mr Blythe, has been proactively managing the fire himself throughout. Wearing breathing apparatus and using a digger, he has, with the agreement of the fire service, removed the burnt material from the fire that is outside the building and dampened it in
	the pools of water which had run off from the fire. Paying a contractor to do this work would have cost tens of thousands of pounds. Without Mr Blythe’s efforts, it is thought that the fire could have burned for two years longer. The operating company did nothing. The fire inside the building continues to burn. A multi-agency incident control team was set up involving Northumberland’s environmental health department, the fire service, the Environment Agency, and Public Health England.
	Residents naturally wanted to know what substances they were being exposed to, and what the short, medium and long-term effects could be. The assurances they were given were hard to accept when they were having to keep their windows and doors shut at all times, turn off ventilation systems, and make alternative arrangements for drying their washing. We repeatedly asked for smoke testing but did not get it until January, nearly five months after the fire broke out. This lengthy battle over different issues has added unnecessarily to the stress and worry for my constituents.
	The burnt material remains on site, and there is a continuing risk of contamination of local watercourses. One of the ongoing issues throughout this sorry saga has been who takes responsibility for removing the burnt material. Throughout the process, residents have been assured that it would be removed. At one point the Environment Agency proposed that the cost of waste removal could be shared with the county council, but the county council argued that responsibility for issuing the permits and for monitoring and enforcing them was held by the Environment Agency and so it should act to deal with the consequences.
	The landlord has been left with about 3,000 tonnes of burnt material. To clear the site would cost at least £200,000. It will cost £500,000 if the waste analysis code requires it to be treated as hazardous, which is not yet clear.
	The Environment Agency has resisted all calls for it to take action to clear the site and charge Blackwater, the operator, with the cost. It argues that the site operator should be given the opportunity to rectify the situation. I fear there is little hope of that happening. What confidence can we have that Blackwater will do anything? It has done nothing at all to deal with the fire or the pollution it has caused.
	I turn now to the Environment Agency’s lack of enforcement of permit conditions. Blackwater’s business model involves taking waste carpet from a number of sources to be shredded and baled and then reused to surface equestrian arenas. It had a further plan, which never got anywhere, to make briquettes from a blend of carpet and wood bound with paraffin wax for biomass power stations.
	On 21 June 2011, Blackwater was awarded a permit to operate as a
	“Household, commercial and industrial waste transfer station with treatment”.
	The first breaches of the permit were identified when the Environment Agency inspected the site in July 2011. It gave advice and guidance. There were subsequent breaches in September and December 2011 and March 2012. In fact, the first time there was an inspection that did not record any breaches was on 6 July 2012—but actually there was a breach. Material previously stored
	outside had been moved to storage bays, but those bays had been put up on part of the site that was outside the area covered by the permit—yet the agency accepted that.
	From February 2013, the situation at the site deteriorated quickly, and the landlord became increasingly concerned about the breaches. In early February 2013, when he complained to the Environment Agency, it said that the site would be inspected in the next few weeks and that
	“the landlord’s patience would be appreciated”.
	At a site visit in March 2013, officials saw the waste being stored outside the shed in excess of the permitted tonnage by a large amount. On 20 March, they asked the operator for an action plan with a deadline of 3 April 2013 to deal with the issue. On 17 April, they agreed a new deadline. Blackwater then advised the Environment Agency that it would be relocating, but it did not. An action plan was received on 23 May, more than seven weeks after the original deadline. There is no approved management system in place for the site.
	Too often it seems that the Environment Agency has accepted at face value information given to it by Blackwater. Deadlines passed and seem simply to have been revised. Storage bays were in place, but they were not within the area covered by the permit. The business was going to move, but it did not. Breaches of permit conditions were also identified at the business’s other site at Milfield, near Wooler in my constituency.
	This company has been paid about £60 a tonne to take waste carpet, which has been stockpiled in amounts far greater than allowed and outside the areas for which the permit was given. There was only a very limited end-of-waste agreement. Complaints were made to the Environment Agency by Mr Blythe, his solicitors and neighbouring residents about Blackwater’s operations. The Environment Agency has now told me that it is pursuing enforcement action against Blackwater, but what was it doing before? Was it under any pressure to go easy on Blackwater?
	It took a parliamentary question to establish that only one representation called on the Environment Agency not to take enforcement action, and it took a freedom of information request to get sight of the e-mail and careful study of the documents to establish who had sent it, because names are redacted. The e-mail reads:
	“Hi Owen…See below from the excellent business which I sent you the EA papers for after your trip to Northumberland.
	As you can see below the EA are trying to shut the business down even though its their non-processing of the licences which is the cause.
	Time is of the essence now for financial reasons—please can you update me on any progress with EA? I am in London on tuesday and wednesday morning next week if we needed to meet.
	Your urgent assistance in this is much appreciated.”
	The Secretary of State did not reply until 5 August. His letter was headed by hand, “Dear Anne-Marie”, which somebody forgot to redact, which made it quite clear that the Conservative prospective candidate for the Berwick constituency had called on the Environment Agency to go easy on the company, which she thought was “excellent”, but was engaged in a serial failure to comply with environmental requirements. In fact, the Secretary of State detailed some of the failures in his letter, and urged that the company should work closely with the Environment Agency. It was an appalling
	failure of judgment for a political candidate to attempt to put pressure on the Environment Agency to go easy on a company flouting permit conditions, which are there to protect my constituents. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Department did nothing as a result of that representation to pressure the Environment Agency not to carry out its enforcement responsibilities.
	The fact remains that the Environment Agency was, through its lack of enforcement, allowing the company to store combustible waste in ways which were bound to make a fire much more serious. I have asked the Environment Agency to clear the site and then claim against Blackwater’s public liability insurance, but it is not willing to attempt that course. Apparently, the Environment Agency would be happy to advise Mr Blythe on how best he could clear the site, but that would mean Mr Blythe having to find the funds to do so—up to £500,000—and then making a claim against Blackwater’s insurance, which might take years to settle.
	If Blackwater fails to clear the site, its permit may well be revoked, but in that case, the problem would become one of contaminated land. The liability for restoring the land—in other words, for removing the burnt waste—might fall on Mr Blythe, as the landowner, and enforcement action could be taken against him for failing to deal with the contamination, despite all his work to try to deal with it. Is that fair? Of course it is not. I therefore ask the Minister to discuss that aspect of the problem with the Environment Agency.
	Blackwater has apparently shown its bank statements to the Environment Agency, and has said that the business has no money to fund a clean-up operation. The company should have received well over £600,000 for taking carpet for recycling, yet no funds were set aside for dealing with the aftermath of potential disasters. Should there not be a bond system, such as existed until 2003, so that money is available for emergency clean-ups, given the increasing number of waste fires around the country? All the Environment Agency now does is to check the financial competence of the operator, a system which completely failed in this case. If something is not done, many more people will suffer as my constituents have done. I ask the Minister to see what he can do to get a happier outcome from this sorry story.

Dan Rogerson: Following our Welsh colleagues’ deliberations to mark St David’s day, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you and the House gool Peran lowen—a happy St Piran’s day—for yesterday, on behalf of Cornish colleagues.
	I was horrified to hear the story that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) has shared with us. He has raised it several times in this place and elsewhere, and he is absolutely right to do so. The issues are very serious, and his points about the regulation of the Blackwater (North East) Ltd waste site are crucial ones for us to bear in mind as we consider the regulatory framework across the country.
	I recognise how diligently my right hon. Friend has represented the interests of his constituents, many of whom have endured significant disruption to their lives and have had to contend with fears about the health effects of the fumes from the fire. I also recognise and commend the work of the site’s landowners, Mr and
	Mrs Blythe, in helping to extinguish the fire and to prevent pollution from the extinguished waste, as my right hon. Friend set out.
	I welcome reports that the firefighting strategy and actions taken to control the run-off of firewater have so far proved effective and have prevented the contamination of both surface water and groundwater. I understand that Public Health England has advised that it does not expect there to be any long-term health effects from the fire.
	My right honourable Friend rightly wants to know when his constituents will be rid of the waste operation, and when the stored waste will be removed. The site must now be returned to a condition that does not pose a continuing risk to the local community and the environment. The primary legal responsibility for that sits firmly with Blackwater, as the holder of the environmental permit. The site operator must meet his responsibility to clear the site and make it safe. As my right hon. Friend said, the landowners, Mr and Mrs Blythe, are calling for the Environment Agency to remove the residual waste from the site. The full cost of removing and disposing of the waste is estimated to be in the region of £635,000. Clearly, the removal of the stored waste must be a priority for all concerned.
	I understand that there were early signs that the operator of the site was co-operating with the Environment Agency to address the breaches of his permit. However, as my right hon. Friend will be aware, the agency found it necessary to serve an enforcement notice on Blackwater on 10 January 2014. The notice required the company to comply with its environmental permit by removing all the extinguished waste by 24 February.
	The site operator has utterly failed to comply with the notice. As a result, the Environment Agency is gathering evidence and has called the operator to a formal interview under caution to answer allegations of non-compliance, which could lead to prosecution or other enforcement action, including a court order to clear the site. If the operator is prosecuted, he should face the full consequences of his failings.
	The seriousness of environmental offences and their environmental and economic impact has been recognised and embodied in the Sentencing Council’s definitive guideline on environmental offences, which was published last week. In following the guideline, it is hoped that courts will reflect the true cost of breaches of environmental legislation when sentencing offenders and that that will act as a strong deterrent.
	As my right hon. Friend has indicated, the Environment Agency has discretionary powers that enable it to take action and recover costs.

Alan Beith: I took part in the framing of the sentencing guidelines and hope that they will provide strong guidance if the matter comes to court. The Minister has referred to the recent decision to take enforcement action. Will he deal later in his remarks with the extraordinarily long period of inaction between 2011 and 2013?

Dan Rogerson: I assure my right hon. Friend that I will talk about the discussions that I have had with the Environment Agency on earlier intervention in sites that may cause a problem or that are causing alarm.
	In the first instance, the Environment Agency is encouraging the operator and the landowner to liaise with their respective insurers so that the cost of clearing and disposing of the waste does not add to the significant costs that have been incurred by the public purse in responding to the incident and in the subsequent pollution monitoring. Given the potential cost that I have set out, we must do everything that we can to avoid it being borne by the public purse. We face many challenges and the Environment Agency is doing a great deal of work across a range of issues, not least as a result of the recent extreme weather events. We must not leap up to incur these costs because they would have an impact on the budget of the Environment Agency or the local authority that intervened.
	More generally, I hope that it will reassure my right hon. Friend to hear that I have been working with the Environment Agency and others to consider how we might prevent problems like those at Thrunton from arising, so that we do not have to take lengthy and costly remedial action. I met the chairman of the Environment Agency, Lord Smith of Finsbury, and its chief executive, Dr Paul Leinster, late last year to discuss these matters, following my appointment as Minister in October. I will do so again shortly.
	The agency is under a duty to ensure that site operators are in a position to meet the obligations under their permits. I have challenged the agency to come to me with proposals on this issue. I am pleased to say that it is exploring, with representatives of the waste management industry, how operators can ensure that they are in a position to fund their obligations, including any potential clear-up and reducing the risk of the abandonment of waste and waste fires.
	The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency are working with the waste industry and the fire and rescue service to identify the root cause of fire incidents. We will assess the lessons that can be learned and the longer-term interventions that may be needed. The Environment Agency is reviewing what it can do to reduce the risk of fires, reduce the drivers of non-compliant behaviour and tackle the problem swiftly.
	My right hon. Friend rightly focused on the agency’s approach to the enforcement of the permit conditions at the site. The Environment Agency has a statutory duty to carry out appropriate periodic inspections of regulated facilities to check their compliance with the terms and conditions of the environmental permits that it grants.
	The agency has my full backing to take tough and timely enforcement action against those who repeatedly flout the law, undermine the legitimate waste management industry, and cause suffering to local communities. As part of the lessons to be learned from the handling of this case, I will ask the agency to consider whether its enforcement action could have been swifter.
	I acknowledge that there have been several recent fires at regulated waste sites, with impacts on local communities that are similar to this case. Some 97% of waste management operators are good performers, so the emphasis must be on how best to intervene early to deal with the non-compliance of the poorest performers in a way that prevents harm to human health and damage to the environment.
	The impact of poor performance and waste fires is one topic in the report, “Waste Crime: Tackling Britain’s Dirty Secret”, which was published on Tuesday this week by the Environmental Services Association Education Trust. I made it clear at the launch of that report that the Government want legitimate waste businesses to prosper and grow. Effective compliance and enforcement are needed to ensure that the market operates as we want, and that serious environmental damage is avoided. My right hon. Friend can be assured that I will continue to monitor the outcome of the incident, and work with the agency to ensure that lessons are learned. I will write to inform him of the actions to be taken as a result.

Alan Beith: I would like to be sure of two things from the Minister. First, does he believe that an atmosphere was created in which the agency did not feel that it could or should use its powers, and that that was perhaps contributed to by inappropriate political pressures such as those I have described? Secondly, is he prepared to talk further with the Environment Agency about how we can avoid a situation in which a landowner who has done so much to deal with the problem is landed with the quite impossible total cost of the clear up?

Dan Rogerson: I am happy to make such an undertaking on my right hon. Friend’s latter point, and in my discussions on the more general points I will look at the specifics of this case and at how Mr Blythe might be affected and what can be done, given the helpful attitude he has shown and the effort he has put into tackling the incident.
	On the point about interference, I have made it clear that we expect the agency to intervene early. It is not my understanding that anything resulted from any contact there may have been with the Department on issues such as this, and in discussions with the agency I have made it clear that I expect it to tackle such problems early. I hope my right hon. Friend will feel that that is the correct way to deal with this and that that is the attitude we should be showing when tackling operators who are not managing resources effectively or moving towards the circular economy we want to see, but who are profiting at the expense of the local environment and local communities.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.